Gender Recognition

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they regard the marriage of two persons each possessing the chromosomes and sexual organs of the same sex as being a same-sex marriage.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government believe that marriage should be possible only between people of opposite gender in law. The Gender Recognition Bill will enable transsexual people who have gained legal recognition in their acquired gender to marry someone of the opposite legal gender. Marriages contracted by transsexual people, once their change of gender has been legally recognised, will be valid marriages between a male and a female, not same-sex marriages.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord did not quite answer the Question on the Order Paper. Is he aware that he was a little more frank in his Written Answer yesterday to the question of whether the Government would regard the marriage of two persons, each of whom is capable of giving birth to children, as being a same-sex relationship? His answer to that was "No". Is it not the case that, to be consistent, his Answer to this Question must also be "No"?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I awoke this morning I had a slight sense of what it must be like to be Tantalus—to realise that one awakes each morning to answer Questions by the eminent noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about sex and gender. We have addressed the issues many times before through the 21 hours that we have given to the Bill. It has been a privilege to be part of that process, in which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has been as redoubtable as any.
	However, at heart, the Government's position is that it is right and proper for the state, after a proper process of testing, to give legal recognition to people who meet the tests as set out in the Bill. Unfortunately, those tests about which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, argues do not hinge on issues of chromosomes or genitalia. The reason that they should not was made eminently clear by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Turnberg, at the Report stage. I could bore the House on that, but I shall not; however, I recommend that noble Lords read the report of proceedings. It sets out explicitly why the medical science on the issues is incredibly more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would have us believe.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that one of the main cruxes of the issue is the difference between what marriage is and what views individuals or collective legislatures may or may not have about same-sex relationships?

Lord Filkin: I do, my Lords. It has been one of the toughest issues of the Bill as regards policy and humanity. We have taken the position, which has not been universally popular on all Benches, that marriage must be a union recognised by the state between people of opposite gender. That is why, as part of the Bill's process, we have said that anyone currently married who wishes to get legal recognition as being of the opposite gender must get divorced. That has been a tough element, but our position has been utterly consistent throughout the passage of the Bill.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the length of time that the House had spent on the Bill. Will he comment on the attempt made last night to defeat the Bill in its entirety—not to amend details, which is surely the function of this Chamber, but to reject it entirely—in circumstances in which the House of Commons could not have used the Parliament Act to bring it back? Will my noble friend comment on the principle at stake in that event?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was very surprised, as I think the House was, because we know that this is a revising Chamber, not a vetoing one. Had such a Motion been carried, the House of Commons would not have been able to consider the Bill. Therefore, this House would effectively have vetoed the Bill and denied the democratically elected Chamber the opportunity to consider it.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Bill will make life easier for a small group of people who suffer severe distress and discrimination at present, and will cause no harm to anyone else?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, puts his finger on the essential issue. Throughout the important and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, noble Lords in many parts of the House have probably recognised that at heart it is proper that the state give legal recognition to the very small number of people who suffer seriously because of the condition that they have experienced. To the extent that there have been significant differences, the arguments have been about peripheral rather than fundamental issues. As attested by the five Divisions that took place, most noble Lords have affirmed exactly the position that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sets out.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is not the expression "same-sex marriage" a contradiction in terms, in accordance with the traditions of our language? If two people of the same sex live together, should they not be described as being in cohabitation?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The concept of same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, which is why our position is utterly clear: we are against it, and do not intend to promote it or allow it to take place.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister own up to the fact that his definition of sex is the legal sex of a person, as opposed to what most people would think is the definition; that is the sex of the body that they inhabit?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I seek to be full and straightforward with the House, and not to give simplistic answers. The Bill essentially focuses on by what process the state should give legal recognition to a very small number of people. Because our debates strayed into medical science and the question of whether it was simple and clear to define gender around gonads and chromosomes, we had the benefit of perhaps the most expert advice that this Parliament could have had—from my noble friend Lord Winston. I commend the House to read what he said. I quote:
	"Genetics is rapidly changing our understanding of where sex is determined. But to define it simply as genital, hormonal, or as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, seeks to do, as gonadal, is a travesty of what really happens".—[Official Report, 3/2/04; col. 620.]

Vocational Courses

Baroness Perry of Southwark: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they will take to reverse the decline in the proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds choosing vocational courses.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, official participation statistics for 16 to 17 year-olds show a rise of 1.1 percentage points in the proportion studying vocational courses in 2002–03 to 27.9 per cent. Our 14-to-19 strategy will give young people more freedom to follow programmes that meet their individual needs. Key to this will be the impartial advice and information offered. To widen choice, we are strengthening vocational and work-related opportunities, including new GCSE and A-Level subjects, together with improved modern apprenticeships.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, although I welcome the very small increase in this past year that the Minister has just named, that nevertheless is a drop from 42 per cent following the vocational route before the introduction of Curriculum 2000. Do the Government realise that they cannot get this wrong? They simply cannot go on playing around with the curriculum when we are suffering from what the British Chambers of Commerce describes as a,
	"crippling UK skills shortage, which places a brick wall in front of a business wanting to raise productivity and expand."
	We simply cannot afford to allow this to continue. I hope that the Minister will consider telling us today that the Government are considering abandoning the failing vocational A-level, the advanced vocational certificate, which lacks properly qualified teachers to teach it, and which is proving unattractive to students. Can we not restore the GNVQ, which was popular? Is there not also a lesson to be learned from the continuing proportion taking well established qualifications such as the BTEC, and the City and Guilds, which both students and employers understand and respect?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I take issue with the noble Baroness on what she considers to be the failing A-level courses. We have, as the noble Baroness will acknowledge, a 14-to-19 strategy. It is, as the noble Baroness would say, based on a recognition that we must do as much as we possibly can to ensure that we have the correct and appropriate skills to support our industry and our economy and that as many of our young people who would benefit from staying on at school have the opportunity to do so, whether that involves pursuing an academic or vocational route, or a mixture of the two. The work that Mike Tomlinson is doing will support that, and I hope that the noble Baroness will also do so.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the outstanding success of vocational training in Germany, going back to the days of Otto von Bismarck, and now, through various types of institution, providing vocational training of the highest quality to about two thirds of German teenagers, are the Government studying models such as the Fachoberschulen and taking note of the part-time Berufsschulen, which underpin the experience of those already in the workplace whether it be hospital, bank, office or factory?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: two thirds of young people pursue what I believe is known as a dual-system apprenticeship, a combination of on-the-job training with one or two days per week at college. Indeed, all of these interesting models are being looked at by Mike Tomlinson in his review of the 14-to-19 strategy. The system in Germany has had a good record of productivity, but issues are being investigated such as the rapidly changing needs in terms of skills, as well as the declining number of apprenticeships available in Germany. None the less, we are looking at these models.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that some young people who occasionally have kicked the dust of school off their heels, but who have very good practical skills, are far better off in a college of further education than either staying at school or going to university? In fact, that is much more likely to lead to a well paid job that uses those skills.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is much in what the noble Baroness says, but it is not an "either/or"; it is a "both/and". The opportunities for our young people to study in different settings or institutions in order to get the best that they can are important. That is at the heart of the 14-to-19 strategy.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister think that there is a danger that the enormous pressure to succeed at A-level in the academic stream encourages schools to be selective as to their sixth-form entry and is therefore not very conducive to encouraging children to stay on for a less academic future, which nevertheless involves further education?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the partnerships that are now under way between schools and further education colleges are a good way of demonstrating that link between wanting young people to be able to focus on an academic and/or a vocational setting with the appropriateness of the skills that they want to acquire and are capable of acquiring in some circumstances. The kind of vocational A-levels that schools are now offering include business, health and social care and manufacturing science. Many schools are now beginning to look at the potential to offer these either in partnership with each other, or in partnership with FE colleges.
	We have to be careful about assuming that there is one category of young people who fit into one setting and another category who fit into another setting. It is about a plurality of settings and the ability of young people to move freely and easily in order to obtain the best that they can from education.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the simple truth that some of us have a fundamental disagreement with government policy on this issue? Far too many young people are being lured into higher education with the promise of work that very often does not exist. Has my noble friend not heard the complaints of employers who are running modern apprenticeship programmes? They say that they can no longer get the high-quality trainees that they got in the old days when, as far as I am concerned, the system was far better?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I can possibly agree with my noble friend that young people are being lured into higher education. That is not something that I recognise. It is absolutely clear—I think the House is united on this—that we want to ensure that all our young people have the opportunity to benefit from an education system appropriate to their skills and needs, which prepares them for employment and life in the future.
	What we argue about is the means to that end. It is my firm belief that the way to do this is to have flexibility in a system that recognises children do not come in boxes marked "vocational", "academic" or anything else. They have different skills and needs. We are trying to ensure that, through whatever means, all young people capable of getting the best from education at a further or higher level get that chance. That is a noble aspiration.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, in her reply the Minister referred to modern apprenticeships. I am one of those people who warmly welcome the progress now being made to increase the number of people taking modern apprenticeships. I also welcome what I hear about the Government's thinking on introducing a pre-apprenticeship stage—key stage 4. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to confirm what I think she said in her initial Answer. Do the Government intend to learn the lessons of the past? Will they ensure that the longer-term reforms for 14 to 19 year-olds recognise that when devising the new diplomas there will be real recognition of the distinctive learning needs of the modern apprenticeship?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. I could not agree more with the noble Lord. I pay tribute to the work that he does. We are of course reflecting on all the lessons that can be learned. We expect the working group on 14-to-19 reform to relate to what has happened with modern apprenticeships and to reflect on how best we can take them forward.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government set up the Learning and Skills Council in order to make progress in that area. Can the Minister give us any information about its success?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not entirely certain that I heard the noble Baroness correctly. Was she referring to the Learning and Skills Council?

Baroness Hooper: Indeed, my Lords.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are 47 learning and skills councils operating across the country. Their role is to look at education and training in conjunction with their education authorities for the older age group. I would be very happy to put a note in the Library of the House, and to write to the noble Baroness with more details about that. I am conscious of time.

Small Businesses: Single European Market

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further help they will provide to small businesses in the developing single European market.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, UK Trade and Investment offers a range of advice and services to assist small businesses in the developing single European market. We achieve that through our network of international trade advisers, which is currently being expanded by 15 per cent. In addition, the UK also supports the work of the European Commission's European Information Centre network in its role to promote the benefits of the single market. The centres offer a range of services to the UK SMEs.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But does he share with me the concern arising from the lead story in Small Business News which details the difficulties and expense of small firms exporting into the euro-zone; for example, in setting up euro bank accounts and establishing credit card collection facilities? Does he agree that all this red tape would be swept away were we to join the single currency?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that report was based on a booklet produced by the DTI, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Treasury on trading in the euro-zone. I do not think that it points to the problems that exist in opening euro accounts. It simply identifies the issues which members of the institute should consider discussing with their clients. I agree with the noble Lord that one thing is clear in this debate: if we joined the euro, it would simplify currency exchange.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, could the Minister explain to his noble friend Lord Harrison that what is needed is a bonfire of the EU regulations and red tape that are stifling enterprise, particularly for small businesses? Does he believe that what is needed is less Europe, not more Europe, if small businesses are to thrive?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, what is required is better regulation, not more or less of it. In some cases, better regulation would be less regulation. That point is increasingly understood across Europe.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I do not wish to provoke further the Eurosceptics on the Tory Benches, but does the Minister accept that, in order to protect small businesses in the negotiations on the EU budget which will come into effect when the 10 new countries join—in addition to trying to protect the so-called UK rebate—Her Majesty's Government also ought to endeavour to protect regional assistance? Thus, we would not suffer in the negotiations about regional assistance, bearing in mind the significant advantage that small businesses get from regional assistance in the less prosperous parts of our nation.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly, when we have those discussions on protecting the UK position, regional assistance is an important objective.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the Minister notice the article in the Times on 17 January in which Monsieur Delors is reported as praising Britain for staying out of the failing euro? If he believes that we are sensible to stay out, surely we would not want to go in under those circumstances.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I had hoped that the House would resist the temptation to use this rather small Question about the accounting systems of small businesses to raise the whole question of the pros and cons of the euro. One thing that is absolutely clear is that a five-minute debate on the pros and cons of the euro will do nothing for large or small businesses.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, under new Labour business regulation has grown by 53 per cent since 1997 costing, together with increased taxation, some £15 billion every year. How are these horrendous barriers to be overcome by small businesses trying to compete in the single European market? Could the Minister tell the House what the Government are going to do about those two specific problems and when they are going to do it? I know he said that this is a small Question, but it is a very important one, particularly to small businesses.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, to answer a question based on such a contentious assumption, which is totally in dispute, about the scale or amount of regulation would be quite improper. We can have a debate about the amount of regulation, how it is defined and its costs in taxation, but I cannot accept that that is a correct assumption on which to have this debate.

BBC Charter

Lord Barnett: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have concerning the renewal of the BBC's charter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launched charter review on 11 December, with the publication of a consultation document, The Review of the BBC's Royal Charter. The review will be wide-ranging, with full public consultation, and we hope that it will be characterised by vigorous and open debate. The only certain outcome of the review is that it will result in a strong BBC, independent of government.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer. Does my noble friend accept that during the debate on the Hutton report, whatever differing views there were, there was a strong view across all sectors of your Lordships' House that the BBC should be a strong and independent organisation in the future? Is there not a great danger that the review could become a party political football if, for example, it is mixed up with a possible general election next year? In the circumstances, would my noble friend be prepared to consider, or at least ask the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to consider, bringing forward the completion of the review to early next year so that it remains outside any discussion on a possible general election, thus retaining a strong and independent BBC, a broadcasting corporation which has earned the admiration of the world?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know no more than my noble friend Lord Barnett about the date of the next general election, but I do know that for a number of decades it has been considered proper to review the charter of the BBC every 10 years. That has not always been the case, but more recently it has been so. The BBC is given a degree of security and knowledge that its position will be re-examined, which is worth doing. To change that timetable for a putative date for the general election seems a poor bargain.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the passage of the Communications Bill, much comment was made about the undue influence of Mr Ed Richards, a special adviser at No. 10, on the outcome of that legislation? Now we are told that there is another blue-sky thinker ensconced in No. 10 who is seeking to influence the outcome of the BBC charter review. If the Minister does not know, I am talking about the noble Lord, Lord Birt. Can he assure the House that the DCMS will play its proper role in the charter review to protect it from influences from other Whitehall departments, including Downing Street?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had to look around because I was slightly taken aback by the assertion that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, has a role in the charter review. I turned around because, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has a special role to play in that review, and we are very grateful to him and to the colleagues who will be appointed to join him in bringing forward an independent view, confirming the independence of the charter review procedure.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may try again with my noble friend. I hope he does not mind if I say that I found his previous response wholly inadequate. He said that we should not change the approximate 10-year review system that has lasted for so long, but I was not asking him to do so. Does he agree that if this House and Parliament were formally to complete the review by early next year, it need not be implemented until 2006, which is the date in question?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that there are no circumstances in which we should not change the 10-year review interval; I said that we should not do it for a bad reason. Changing the interval for a reason such as proposed by my noble friend, which would be in unjustified knowledge and anticipation of the date of the next general election, would be a bad one.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answer to my noble friend about the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, left confusion more confounded since he made no clear statement about whether the noble Lord, Lord Birt, is informally or formally—as a private citizen or as an occupant of No. 10 Downing Street—playing an acknowledged, deliberate part in the process?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said nothing about the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I expressed my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for agreeing to participate in the charter review process, bringing to it independence, intellectual probity and strength. I said nothing about the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who is perfectly entitled to participate, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said, as a private citizen.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, would the noble Lord define what he means by the "independence of the BBC"? Is that purely independence from government?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the words I used in my first Answer were, "a strong BBC, independent of government".

Illegal Workers: Morecambe Bay Tragedy

Lord Dholakia: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of events in Morecambe Bay, they will consider allowing asylum seekers whose applications are pending to take up lawful employment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government share the widespread concern about last week's tragic events in Morecambe Bay and sympathise with those bereaved. We believe it is vital that the asylum process is used for its intended purpose; namely, helping those people fleeing persecution, in line with the 1951 convention. It should not be used as a route for those seeking work. However, the Government support legal migration for work purposes. We have significantly increased the number of work permits issued to UK businesses and opened up routes for lower skilled workers.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness on becoming Peer of the Year.
	Our hearts go out to the families of those who lost their lives in Morecambe Bay, in particular those who lost their only source of income. I know that the Minister shares our concern about human trafficking, which now seems to be more profitable than trafficking drugs. Does the Minister agree that the ugly side of this equation is that countless people have lost their lives when being trafficked across frontiers? Those who survive then become victims of exploitation in sweatshops, in cheap labour and in prostitution. Can she explain what is being done to deal with those who mastermind such operations? How many prosecutions have been brought and is there a Europe-wide strategy to deal with this issue?
	Would it not be appropriate to allow asylum seekers to work so that there is some dignity while their applications are being considered?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. I do not believe that it was deserved, but I am very grateful to all noble Lords.
	I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about human trafficking because what happened in Morecambe Bay was, of course, a human tragedy first and foremost. The Government are absolutely committed to reducing the numbers engaged in illegal working and the Immigration Service regularly disrupts illegal working activity. Between April and June 2003 the Immigration Service reported carrying out 79 illegal working operations of which 27 were aimed at detecting five or more illegal workers. Between October and November last year the number of reported operations increased by over 75 per cent on the second quarter to 141, while the operations aimed at detecting five or more illegal workers rose by over 175 per cent to 75.
	I turn to the point made by the noble Lord about allowing people to work. Noble Lords will know that we have significantly reduced the time it takes to determine applications, which is of the greatest assistance. We want people to come here by legal means and we are seeking to take out the illegality in the system because it brings tragedies of this kind. We shall eradicate it if it is humanly possible so to do.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, everyone agrees that these people have been quite disgracefully exploited. Can my noble friend tell the House what arrangements are being made to inspect employment sites of this kind to ensure that people are paid at least the minimum wage?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are taking steps, some of which I have just outlined, to enforce the system rigorously. Many gangmasters behave appropriately and obey the regulations, but others do not. A holistic approach needs to be taken to this issue which is what we, together with the many other agencies involved, are doing.

Lord Chan: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the number of people working in the illegal economy is very large? Given that, what are the Government doing to police, weed out and punish those benefiting from it not only by making high profits but also by penalising local citizens who would expect to be paid a minimum normal working wage?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lord, we are taking a number of steps, not the least of which is the introduction of a new offence of trafficking and exploitation to be included in the asylum Bill. Work is under way with the Reflex taskforce against organised crime and we have announced the creation of a serious organised crime agency. Those actions underline our determination to tackle organised crime in co-operation with our international partners. This is something which we have to pursue with increasing vigour. I can assure the House that this Government are wholly committed to bringing this dreadful practice to an end.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, the tragedy in Morecambe Bay is surely to be added to the tragedy in Worcestershire when a train collided with a minibus full of workers in slightly different but relatively similar circumstances. Does the Minister agree that there seems to be a discernible shift in the public response to these matters because events of this kind display to people the enormous human cost involved in people trafficking and the offering of opportunities for illegal work? Before the last election the Prime Minister offered to Church leaders that he would invest more in the business of educating the public about the nature and sources of asylum seekers and their increased numbers. Does the Minister agree that that would be a way of capitalising on the shift in public mood and facilitate the Government in making proper humane and compassionate provision for asylum seekers in this country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that this shows the other side of the equation. The one light on the horizon is that the natural humanity of this country towards those in need is shining out more clearly now than it has hitherto. Education is important and we shall continue to do all we can in that regard. Noble Lords will know that we are revising the secondary legislation supporting Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to ensure that we are all focused on eradicating the illegality at present in the system.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, do the Government accept the recommendation made recently by the All-Party Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—which can be used to seize the assets of people traffickers—should also be used to seize the assets of those who employ illegal workers and subject them to the kind of conditions suffered by those involved in the tragedy at Morecambe Bay?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we shall shortly be revising the secondary legislation supporting Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. As your Lordships know, that legislation deals with employers and the prevention of illegal working. It will strengthen the kinds of documentation that employers are required to check to comply with Section 8. This will make it easier for the Immigration Service to identify and prosecute non-compliant employers. In the longer term, the introduction of ID cards will be a major boost in the fight against illegal working.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in her response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, she overlooked to report how many prosecutions have been initiated? I should be grateful if she would reply to that point.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have to hand the precise number of prosecutions and I shall write to the noble Lord. I outlined how many operations have been undertaken and the fact that the numbers of prosecutions that have flowed from them have increased. I do not have the information required by the noble Lord, but I shall certainly write to him setting out the figures once I am aware of them.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is well known that Morecambe Bay has a ferocious incoming tide. Was there an error in the tidal predictions in the tide tables for that particular night?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know whether there was an error in the tidal predictions. However, I do know that there were people in Morecambe Bay at that time who were not legally permitted to be there. I cannot comment on the ongoing detailed investigations. Noble Lords will know that five people have been arrested. I am obviously not privy to the evidence that will make up any future prosecution.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned—

Lord Jopling: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Cross Benches!

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned that asylum decisions are now being made somewhat more quickly and that is, of course, welcome. But is it not the case that there is still a very large backlog and that appeals take a long time? In those circumstances, does she not agree that it would enhance individual human dignity, as well as saving welfare support, if bona fide applicants were allowed to take up legal work?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind the noble Lord's question but what he suggests would pre-determine whether a claim is well founded. The noble Lord referred to "bona fide" applicants. The whole process that we have put in place seeks to determine that very fact. We have tried to go more quickly for precisely the reason indicated by the noble Lord; namely, that those who have bona fide claims must be allowed to get on with their lives as quickly as possible. This will enable them to take advantage of work and to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. We have reduced the timescale significantly and the majority of claims are dealt with within six months. That timescale is going down and many claims are now dealt with within two months. I hope noble Lords will agree that that is a very short period which allows people to get on with their lives very quickly indeed.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, speaking as one who for many years represented parts of Morecambe Bay, I associate myself with the Minister's expression of sympathy. But, speaking also as a former fisheries Minister, will the noble Baroness ask her ministerial colleagues to look again at the current exploitation of the fishery resource within Morecambe Bay? It is an extremely valuable resource which, at the moment, is in danger of being over-exploited and fished out. Will the Government consider the possibility of imposing much tighter controls and licensing so that that valuable fishery resource is not totally played out?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. Notwithstanding that his comments go slightly wide of the Question, I absolutely understand why he makes them. I shall ensure that my colleagues are made aware of his comments. The noble Lord will be aware that, even now, there are issues regarding the licensing of fishery matters in this kind of situation.

University of Manchester Bill [HL]

Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

University of Wales, Cardiff Bill [HL]

Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Parliament and the EU

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on greater parliamentary involvement in European Union work made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's plans for enhancing the role of Parliament in EU matters and in respect of other developments in the European Union.
	"This is set to be an important year for the European Union. Ten new members join on 1 May. The elections for a new European Parliament take place in June. We also have the initial proposals on the financing of the European Union after 2006; the continuing efforts to reform the European economy so that it better delivers jobs and prosperity; and the outstanding matter of the intergovernmental conference.
	"By the end of this year we hope to conclude accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria and take a decision on whether to launch such negotiations with Turkey. Meanwhile discussions began yesterday in New York on the scope for a re-united Cyprus joining the EU in May.
	"These and other EU developments are of profound importance to Britain and to British interests. It is therefore vital that this House and Parliament as a whole have an integral role in debating, influencing and agreeing the policies of the British Government.
	"Together with my right honourable friend the Leader of the House and other colleagues, I was concerned to ensure that there was regular and rigorous parliamentary discussion of the intergovernmental conference following the publication of the draft constitutional treaty last summer. We therefore laid a White Paper on the draft treaty before the House last September. Ministers and officials attended a total of 13 sessions with committees in this House and the Lords on the convention and the IGC and responded to 16 Select Committee reports. From last May onwards, when the successive parts of the convention text of the treaty were published, we had more than a dozen debates on EU issues on the Floor of both Houses and three sessions of the new IGC Standing Committee.
	"This parliamentary engagement in the IGC process helped develop a better understanding of the issues at stake and strengthened our negotiating position at the EU table. On energy, for example, the strength of opinion in Parliament here helped us to secure an acceptable amendment from the Italian EU presidency.
	"This level of scrutiny and debate on the IGC should, in my view, become the norm for providing Parliament with the opportunity to oversee the work of the European Union and the British Government's role within it. Indeed, given the range of issues which the EU now covers, from trade to the environment, from cross-border crime to consumer protection, it is vital that we enhance national democratic scrutiny in this way.
	"I greatly applaud the diligent and valuable work of the scrutiny committees in both Houses. But I am sure that they would agree that we also need a broader and earlier focus across Parliament as a whole on the forthcoming plans of the Commission and the Council, and sufficiently in advance so that all Members of the House and the other place have an opportunity to raise concerns and influence policy before it is set in stone.
	"So first, starting in April of this year, and then each January thereafter, the Government will lay before Parliament a White Paper looking at the year ahead for the EU's legislative and other activities. The paper will set out the Government's priorities in the light of the European Commission's legislative and work programme for the year ahead, as well as the operational programme for the forthcoming EU presidencies agreed each December by the European Council.
	"At the same time, and subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, I would make an oral statement to the House summarising the White Paper's main themes. In addition, we will publish, as a Command Paper, an interim report each July to take stock of progress and look ahead to the second six-month presidency of the year. These papers will subsume our existing, retrospective reviews of developments in the EU.
	"Secondly, to build on the Standing Committee which was set up to look at the convention and then the IGC, the Government favour creating a successor committee, whose remit would be extended to cover the whole of the EU's work. To this end, my right honourable friend the Leader of the House hopes shortly to present proposals to the modernisation committee for its consideration. Our aim is that the new committee would be open to Members of both Houses and that Ministers involved in EU work, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from other departments would give statements, respond to questions and participate in debates. I hope also that the House might consider whether ways might be found to allow European commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the new body, and perhaps for United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament also to attend.
	"I look forward to the modernisation committee findings and hope the committee might include in its inquiry the operation of the existing European Standing Committees A, B and C, which, to express a purely personal view, seem never to have worked fully as intended.
	"Decisions on any new committee are, of course, a matter for the House, along with the other place. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House and I have discussed this idea informally with the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and, indeed, it reflects much of the thinking contained in the committee's report on European Scrutiny in the Commons of 22 May 2002. I have also raised the idea with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and discussed it informally with the chairman of the European Union Committee in the House of Lords.
	"Let me turn to a number of other proposals. The first is a more strategic approach to EU business in the form of the three-year strategic programme adopted by the European Council last December, which we have made available to the chairmen of the scrutiny committees of both Houses. This is designed to overcome the inherent difficulties posed by the existing system of six-month EU presidencies by setting out agreed objectives and priorities for the EU and time frames for their implementation.
	"Planning for the British EU presidency in the second half of 2005 is already well under way. This will give us a valuable chance to keep the EU agenda focused on delivering economic reform, jobs and growth. As he announced to the House on 10 December last year, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is already working with his Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg colleagues, as the next presidencies, to achieve better regulation in the EU. For Europe to remain competitive, we must make faster progress on deregulation and on more flexible labour, capital and product markets. An improved EU regulatory framework, according to the International Monetary Fund, could deliver as much as a 7 per cent increase in the EU's GDP and a 3 per cent increase in productivity in the longer term.
	"Another issue which needs attention is the transposition of EU legislation into national law. The risk of "gold-plating" the original texts and thereby imposing on British businesses more stringent conditions than those faced by their competitors in other member states is real.
	"It was with this in mind that about 18 months ago I commissioned the distinguished European lawyer Robin Bellis to prepare a report on our implementation of EU legislation, which I published on 24 November last year. I held a seminar in December to discuss its recommendations with representatives from across government, this House, the EU institutions and the CBI. I have asked the relevant departments to report back to me in six months on the steps they have taken to implement them; and I would welcome the views of the House.
	"Britain's national interests are best served by an active engagement with our partners in the European Union. But just as issues such as trade, the environment or organised crime require effective cross-border action through the EU, so it is imperative that national democratic bodies are fully engaged on these issues as well. I hope that the proposals I have set out today will go some way to ensuring that we in this House, and in Parliament as a whole, can be more effective in doing just that".
	My Lords, that completes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. To me, it sounds constructive, in parts, especially the White Paper telling us in advance what is coming from the European Union instead of merely reporting what has happened in the past. That will be a great improvement. I favour the continuation, or development, of the Standing Committee which includes Members of the other place and your Lordships. I think the present committee has worked quite well and this would work better still, especially if it is able to persuade commissioners from Brussels to attend and answer questions. I know from experience that efforts to do so have been made in the past by parliamentary committees, frankly with not much success.
	However, while we support all attempts to increase accountability and parliamentary surveillance of European Union law-making, it will be all in vain if new powers accumulate at the level of the EU institutions faster than we can call them to account or even keep track of them. It becomes a "finger in the dyke" exercise against increasingly unfavourable trends. Yet that is exactly what the Government were ready to sign up to in the new draft constitution, prevented only by Poland and Spain, who were blamed for their intransigence. In that constitution, no fewer than 40 new policy domains are brought into majority voting and the central powers of the EU institutions are hugely extended by shared competences and other devices.
	I have some questions for the Minister against that background and in the context of those potential dangers. Do the proposed procedures actually return powers to national Parliaments? Everyone is in favour of broader and earlier focus on plans from the European Commission and the Council, but will there be powers to change or halt proposals, either by working alone or in combination with other Parliaments in other member states?
	I recall that the draft constitution proposes a Commission review if parliamentary committees challenge the competence of the European Union in the new areas and with new proposals—if enough Parliaments in enough member states make that challenge. That is what is called the yellow card procedure. Many of us took the view—including representatives on the former convention and some Ministers—that the yellow card was not really enough and that a red card was needed to enable the committees of the Parliaments to halt or prevent extension of new competencies and new powers being exercised by European Union institutions. Do the new procedures do anything on that front?
	Secondly, although there is talk about scrutiny in the Statement, there is no mention of the process of scrutiny reserve to which Members of this House attach much importance and on which your Lordships reported in detail back in December 2002 in an excellent report from the European Union Select Committee. The report suggested that there should be much tougher hurdles before scrutiny reserve is simply overturned by the Government for this or that reason. In fact, last year, 1,327 EU instruments were placed before the scrutiny committees of both Houses. I do not know how many reserves were placed on those but I do not think that there were very many. However, I know that no fewer than 71 of those reserves were simply overruled by Ministers. That is why your Lordships rightly argued in the Select Committee that the process needed toughening up. That suggestion is not included in the Statement, which is a great pity, especially as the numbers of instruments will obviously be greater still in an enlarged Community.
	My next question concerns the comotology process, the process by which the Commission and committees of the European Parliament—as your Lordships know—in effect decide the shape of new legislation and new instruments. When some of them reach us it is of course a fait accompli—we have only the chance to say yes or no and usually have to say yes. In some cases, legislation does not reach us at all and simply passes unseen and unscrutinised into our law. That is totally unsatisfactory. It is essential that ways are found of involving national parliaments in the law-making process before it is all sewn up elsewhere. I would like the Government to employ their minds to that important area.
	I was extremely glad that gold plating was referred to in the Statement. Again, the Lords Select Committee to which I referred had some very strong views and was kind enough to quote my own on this matter. I query why we need a report, by however distinguished a lawyer, about the proposition that our implementation tends to be gold plating in some areas and need not be. Members of the European Parliament—whom it is suggested should be involved in the Standing Committee—could tell us pretty quickly and clearly whether we were overegging this pudding. They are very well informed about the way in which laws are implemented and observed or not observed in different countries. We should not adopt another vast review, but the Select Committee's recommendation. When the Government want to bring in another EU-inspired law, they should explain in the initial explanatory memorandum to Parliament exactly how they intend to implement it. We should be able to debate that. That is all we need. We do not need a vast inquiry.
	Many other issues are raised by this significant set of proposals. Does the Minister agree that there are three key points that should be kept in mind in meeting the ever growing democratic deficit—the gap between the people of Europe and the activities and proposals of the EU institutions? First, the European Parliament, however hard it works, is not able to achieve that on its own. Secondly, national parliaments must have the real power to change or halt bad and intrusive EU laws and must be involved as early as possible in the process that leads to those laws. Thirdly, the draft constitution now threatening to return to us again will make the whole problem very much worse.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, may I join in emphasising the constructive nature of these proposals announced by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon and repeated here? They bear testimony to the truth that it is possible to move quite far down the road of accepting the practicalities of many of the proposals made by the convention and reflected in the draft constitution at the hand of the Government and Parliament. I also welcome the Government's recognition that time is needed to set up proceedings to make the proposals effective. Many of them reflect and are entirely conformable with the draft protocol on the national Parliaments in the European Union which was appended to the draft treaty.
	The particular emphasis of the Statement on advance notice of pending legislation is extremely welcome. The measures for the scrutiny of proposals in advance are broadly welcome, although I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is the Government's preference to seek to establish a joint committee of the two Houses, because that is not entirely clear in the Foreign Secretary's Statement. What precise proposals have the Government in mind for responding to the invitation of the draft protocol that the national Parliaments should send a reasoned opinion on whether legislation conforms with the principles of subsidiarity? There is no specific reference to that in the Statement. A timescale is proposed that is quite short. It will therefore need to be reflected in the procedures of the two Houses if it is to be effectively advanced.
	Gold-plating is a subject of some importance. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I welcome what the Statement says. This House has a continuing interest in the matter, but has not to my knowledge been formally involved, save through the informal discussions of the chairman of the scrutiny committee on how this House might be effective. In particular, in addition to the views of the distinguished lawyer, Mr Bellis, what are the views of the parliamentary draftsmen who have such an important role to play in this regard?
	Finally, what steps do the Government propose to enhance the transparency of proceedings in the Council in accordance with the provisions in Title IV, Article 49 of the proposed draft treaty requiring Ministers to meet in public when examining and adopting legislative proposals? Without that provision full effective scrutiny of the actions of European legislatures will not be possible.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Maclennan of Rogart, for their constructive interventions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked about the White Paper being issued in advance of any particular year's proceedings of the two presidencies. He said that this was the opportunity to comment. I am sure that he will have noted from my right honourable friend's Statement that there will be not only a White Paper, but we shall also seek an opportunity to deliver an oral Statement that will give immediacy to comment from both Houses on the proposal. He is right that this is a continuation of the style that was developed as regards the convention and the IGC, much in the way with which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, agreed. However, it is important that both Houses have the opportunity to comment on what are essentially government suggestions. The noble Lords said that there was a little ambiguity in some of the phraseology of the Statement. In so far as there has been any ambiguity, it is because it is essential for these proposals to go before the Modernisation Committee in another place and before your Lordships' own Procedure Committee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that all of this would be in vain if new powers accrued to the European Union and we were essentially using a parliamentary device, trying to claw back those powers. I very much disagreed with his subsequent comments on the draft treaty. The issue, which the noble Lord and I have debated on a number of occasions, is that the text reinforces the role of national Parliaments. I am surprised that he is not keen on the draft treaty in that respect. I think that it more clearly defines the fact that powers derive from the member states. For the first time, it states that any powers not conferred on the Union by member states remain with those member states. That is an enormously important area. If we are able at the IGC to bring forward the draft treaty in due course, as we hope may be possible under this Irish presidency, I hope that we shall see that desire become a reality.
	The exact nature of the powers of any committee would, as I indicated, be a matter for the modernisation committee of the other place, your Lordships' Procedure Committee and the committee itself. Its relationship with the national Parliament—that is to say the committee's relationship with the Floor of the House—would be a matter for discussion. The real point is that, in the absence of the draft treaty, the Government are doing what we can to involve Parliament as fully as possible. I do not know how many times I have stood at the Dispatch Box while noble Lords from all parts of the House have told me that it is vital to have the opportunity to comment before matters are set in stone. I cannot think how many times that point has been made forcefully, notably from the Benches opposite. This is the opportunity. Here it is. We are a listening Government and we are trying to meet precisely that desire.
	The problem of scrutiny in another place is alluded to, somewhat decorously, in the Statement in my right honourable friend's comments on committees in another place. He said that it is time to review that issue. By contrast, I think that our Procedure Committee has an outstanding record. I would venture to suggest that the European Union Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has an outstanding record throughout the European Union in the way in which it has been able to comment on developments in the convention and the IGC as they have progressed. That has been of enormous help and importance to us.
	Both noble Lords commented on the issue of gold-plating. I suggest that that is evidence that the Government have listened very particularly to what your Lordships' committee has said on this issue and, by extension, to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. The noble Lord asked whether we need to have a lawyer dealing with this. These are legal matters within the European issue so that is important. Members of the European Parliament are welcome to give their views on this subject, but there is a legal context for gold-plating. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said that he hoped that parliamentary draftsmen and your Lordships' House would be involved in this process. The Statement makes it clear that departments need to give a view on what is happening. It will not be a vast inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said. The inquiry will report back in six months and it must do its job properly.
	The noble Lord went on to raise various issues that he felt were important in relation to our Parliament being involved as soon as possible. I have covered that point. I have also covered the point that the draft constitution, that is to say the draft treaty, will be enabling on the very points about which the noble Lord is worried, rather than the reverse.
	I hope that I have covered a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. He also raised the issue of whether it would be a Joint Committee of both Houses. Let us be clear that that is the Government's preference. That is what we, as Ministers, have discussed and it is our clear preference. The reason it is not absolutely crystal clear in the Statement is that the final decision on that rests in this House and in another place. It is for your Lordships and for another place to decide how committees should be put together. The Government's belief is that it would be best done as a Joint Committee.
	The noble Lord asked about the legislation on the principles of subsidiarity and said that we would have to look at the timetable carefully, because of the brevity of the time gaps involved. I undertake to ask my honourable friend the Minister for Europe to look at that issue. It is important. Indeed, we have been talking about trying to garner views and it would be a shame if sufficient time were not allowed.
	I hope that I have answered the main points in the replies of both noble Lords to the Statement.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I very much welcome the emphasis that is placed on national democratic scrutiny of the work of the European Union and the British Government's role within it. I welcome with equal enthusiasm the fact that they will produce White Papers twice a year and lay them before the House. I also thank her for her kind remarks about the work of the European Union Select Committee. It is true that we are already working upstream, reviewing the Commission's annual work programme and its Green and White Papers. We are reviewing at a very early stage the budget and also priorities of the incoming presidencies.
	Regarding a possible successor to the Joint Standing Committee, I shall, of course, consult my Select Committee. However, will the Minister give us an assurance that it will be a genuine Joint Committee, allowing this House to play a full and equal role with the other place? Secondly, given the fact that there are existing European scrutiny mechanisms in both Houses, I must ask what value a new committee will add. Would there not be value in having the new committee discuss the White Papers, without precluding proper debate in the existing committees? Finally, will the Minister assure the House that any proposals that go to the Modernisation Committee in another place will simultaneously be presented to this House so that the appropriate forums in this House can consider them in parallel, and not after the other place has come to conclusions?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for his comments. Like my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary I pay tribute to the valuable work done by the EU committees in both Houses. We value that work far too much to allow anything that we propose to trespass on it. However, as I have indicated to your Lordships, the nature of the new Standing Committee will, of course, be a matter for the relevant committees in both Houses to look at.
	The noble Lord asked whether there would be a genuine Joint Committee. As I hope I have made clear, the Government would welcome a fully Joint Committee. However, that is a matter for Parliament. I understand that that would require some procedural changes. I hope that the Procedure Committee in your Lordships' House and the appropriate committee in another place can find a way to bring this about. It is very much to be desired, and I fully endorse the noble Lord's remarks about your Lordships' House, and Members of your Lordships' House, having an equal role.
	The noble Lord went on to ask about the added value that such a new committee would bring, and he asked about the value of having a committee to discuss new White Papers without precluding a proper debate. The precise role of the committee is of course a matter for consultation and discussion, but the Government see great benefit in any new committee serving as a forum for the new White Papers on the Commission's future work programme and presidency prospects. The possibility of involving commissioners and MEPs would broaden the basis of that sort of discussion; there would be real added value from the different voices, in addition to the voices of your Lordships and Members in another place.
	Finally, the noble Lord asked about the proposals going to the Modernisation Committee being simultaneously presented to this House. I agree with the spirit of the question. Without wishing to offend any of the usual channels in your Lordships' House, the proposals for a new committee are matters for the House to discuss. Again, however, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I have both made clear, we want both Houses to be fully informed. We believe that the value of having both Houses working as they did on the convention and the IGC shows the importance of both Houses having a say on how the matter is to be taken forward.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the devil may well be in the detail? In this afternoon's Statement, which I broadly welcome as a very constructive approach, we do not have any knowledge at all of the precise proposals being made to the modernisation committee. I emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said—that in those circumstances, this House, and in particular the noble Lord and his committee, should be involved. I can use the words of the Statement to speak of the degree to which they ought to be involved. In another context, the Statement refers to,
	"an opportunity to raise concerns and influence policy before it is set in stone".
	Those are appropriate words for how the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his committee ought to engaged.
	There is an ever-growing democratic deficit. The answer to that is in our hands, as it is the job of national parliaments, is it not, to take their own powers to control their own governments? In the sense that in the broader areas of forward-looking policy this Statement gives us the opportunity to do that, then I welcome it. However, would my noble friend agree that that should not be confused with the existing scrutiny role undertaken in such different ways between this House and another place? Does she agree that the role that is foreseen is very proactive, and that it is additional and complementary to, rather than an alternative to, the scrutiny that is currently done?
	On the role of Members of the European Parliament, much as I admire them, increasingly from afar, can my noble friend tell me what care is taken to avoid any role confusion? Just as it is our role and the role of the British Parliament to control the ministerial input to the Council of Ministers, is not the role of the European Parliament and its parliamentarians limited to control of the Commission and to the Commission's role? It has more than enough work on its plate at the moment to fulfil that role adequately and in totality.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, that the devil is in the detail. It nearly always is. On the question of the precise proposals to be put to the modernisation committee and to the Procedure Committee in your Lordships' House, I agree that these are matters about which your Lordships are free to give advice and to offer the Foreign Secretary some thoughts about how details might be addressed.
	The noble Lord referred to what he described as the "democratic deficit", and urged noble Lords to take the opportunities afforded to them for engaging in these issues. I endorse everything that he said. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, has an enviable record of attendance at the IGC. He attended on every occasion on which he was meant to attend, although I am not sure that the same could be said for some of his honourable and right honourable friends in another place. My point is that it is important that those of your Lordships who are really concerned about these matters take up the opportunities when they are available to engage in this sort of debate.
	On the question of scrutiny, nothing in the Government's proposals should be seen as an alternative to the opportunities for scrutiny that are currently available. As for MEPs and role confusion, as I understand it the Statement suggests that UK Members of the European Parliament might also attend such a meeting. It does not say that they should necessarily become members. The detail of how the process might be handled, if it were to find favour with both the relevant committees, would have to be thrashed out.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I press the Minister on a question put to her by my noble friend Lord Howell? Will there be any return of powers to national parliaments, as opposed to toothless scrutiny? To be more precise, will there be any change to the treaties, which allow the unelected bureaucracy—the Commission—a monopoly of proposing new laws, for instance? Will there be any change to the system whereby when our executive, the Government, have been outvoted or have agreed a new law in Brussels, the House of Commons must enact that law on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg court? Powers ceded to Brussels cannot be returned to national parliaments. Will there be any change in that? Will the acquis communautaire be reversed in any way?
	Finally, the Minister was bullish about the draft constitution but, even under that, national parliaments are given only a formal right to express an opinion on whether a proposed measure complies with the principles of subsidiarity. The new privilege does not go any wider than that—and, even then, if one-third of national parliaments do object, the Commission is obliged only to review the measure. After that, it may maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal as it pleases.
	To return to my noble friend's question, is any real power being returned to national parliaments, or is this all just more window dressing?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is the power to influence. I do not know how many times the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has challenged me and said that what we were doing was not good enough because we keep on presenting Parliament with a fait accompli. I am telling him that here is an opportunity, for him and for others, to put forward their point of view before issues are "set in stone"—to use the language in my right honourable friend's Statement.
	The noble Lord is far too old a hand to ask me whether this means a treaty change; of course it does not. The noble Lord must give your Lordships credit for some common sense. A treaty can be changed only, as the noble Lord knows, by unanimous decision by those who signed up to it. Of course, that does not mean that Parliament loses its sovereign powers to take decisions that a sovereign power is entitled to take, but it does mean that there might be a quite heavy price to pay in those circumstances. In and of itself, of course that does not mean any "return of powers", to use the noble Lord's language. He says, "Well then so what?" It does mean that he will have the opportunity, which he has said over and over again that he wanted, to get in on the ground floor and try to influence the way in which future treaties are drawn up.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe that it is our turn.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches and then the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is not seeking information to make this thing work, but flying a kite to try to get us out of the European Union, as he does every time.
	I refer to a point that my noble friend Lord Maclennan made. Are we any nearer to getting to grips with what goes on in the Council? This is the Achilles heel of the whole situation at the moment. We know that in some countries Ministers are mandated before they go to Council meetings. I doubt whether that works quite as well as they sometimes pretend that it does, but are we any nearer to reaching a position where Parliament knows before Ministers go to Council meetings what is on the agenda and what positions they are going to take up—not necessarily the detailed positions but the general principles—so that Parliament can express itself either through its committees or through the House itself?
	One of the problems in another place is that the amount of time that Members get to debate matters that have been referred to them by their excellent Select Committee—which does a rather different job from the one here—is very limited indeed. It refers matters to a Standing Committee or very, very occasionally has its reports debated on the Floor of the House. That seems to me another area where perhaps our colleagues in another place might lean on the authorities there.
	I come back to the question of what will be the role of Members of this House in this new committee. We cannot any longer allow the crumbs that drop from the Commons table to be the only thing that we are allowed to taste. The idea that noble Lords are allowed to attend on sufferance seems to me to be unacceptable. I hope that the Government will use their influence with the authorities in another place to make sure that the committee really becomes a Joint Committee. I am sure that noble Lords feel quite strongly about that.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I put my cards on the table—I feel quite strongly about the matter. When this was suggested, I as the Foreign Office spokesman in your Lordships' House, and having had the honour to be so over a number of years, was very clear what I thought. I am very clear what noble Lords would think were they not to be put in that position. However, I say to your Lordships that this is not a matter for me. This is a matter for both Houses to decide. I can say what the Government's position is and how much I am committed to that position, but I am not in a position to deliver on it, as the noble Lord knows. However, that is not the only opportunity for the noble Lord and his colleagues to get to better grips—to use his words—with what goes on at the Council. An opportunity will be afforded by the two White Papers to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, alluded earlier. One will give the outlook for the year and will be delivered in April this year but in January in succeeding years. The other will conduct a kind of stock take in July after the first presidency.
	Quite apart from the normal reporting back after EU summits which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister undertakes, there will be the opportunity for your Lordships to engage at an early stage with the menu of what will be on the EU agenda for the following year. As regards the noble Lord's remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was not really seeking information but it is good fun answering his questions anyway.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it was a long Statement and I want to study it in great depth because there was a lot in it. The Minister will know my views on Europe and that I do not believe we can really control this burgeoning European colossus, but nevertheless there are some interesting proposals in the Statement. I want to concentrate on two of them. First, exactly how effective will the Standing Committee be irrespective of the role the Lords have to play? We shall have to deal with our role ourselves; the noble Baroness cannot do that, as she said.
	However, it is the power of the Standing Committee itself that will count. I attended all the Standing Committee meetings on the convention and the draft constitution so I know exactly how it works. In fact, it was completely and utterly ineffective. Therefore, what powers will the new body have? Will it merely be able to take note as the previous ones did or will it be able to make recommendations to Ministers and to the Government, if not give instructions to the Government? Those questions need to be answered if the committee is to be seen to be effective. I should also ask whether Ministers of the Crown will always be present at the relevant meetings to take part in and answer the debates. Those questions are relevant and important.
	The second proposal involves the question of MEPs. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, put the matter in a nutshell. They have their role and we have our role. If the twain shall meet, both those roles will not be clear—they will be blurred. As we have seen with the committee of Members of Parliament from the various countries who meet with the European Parliament, COSAC, the European Parliament tends to want to dominate. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that point too.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall do my best to reply at top speed. I am very aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I do not think that there is a burgeoning European colossus. In any case, the Statement is about the Government, not about the European Union. As regards how effective the Standing Committee will be, that is a matter for the Standing Committee, your Lordships' House and another place. As Members of Parliament you have it within your power to make this committee effective, if that is what you wish to see. Ministers will take the matter very seriously. This is not an exercise in presentational skills; it is serious in intent. We took the convention and the IGC seriously. We took part in 13 sessions and responded to 16 Select Committee reports and more than a dozen debates on the Floors of both Houses.
	The questions that the noble Lord asks about the powers of the committee are matters for the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee in this House. I say with absolute clarity to the noble Lord that the powers of any committee stop short of treaty change, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Ministers of the Crown will attend the relevant meetings if requested; I refer not only to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers but also to Ministers from other government departments. The question of MEPs will be dealt with by the Procedure Committees.

Afghanistan

The Earl of Sandwich: rose to call attention to the efforts made by NATO and the United Nations to help the people of Afghanistan to defeat terrorism and improve security to assist national reconstruction; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords,
	"In the name of God,
	the Compassionate, the Merciful". Those are the famous words of the Koran which open speeches all over the Muslim world, and were used by the respected Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, last week when he urged the people to register for the forthcoming elections. They are a reminder that reconstruction is a solemn task, not only for the new Afghan nation but for the whole international community and our soldiers and aid workers who are risking their lives there.
	It is a pleasure to be opening a debate on Afghanistan only two weeks after a Commons debate was initiated by the Government themselves—perhaps because the war in Afghanistan has been so eclipsed by the Hutton report and more tragic events in Iraq. The Commons debate opened by Mr Gareth Thomas focused mainly on development, which is one reason why I shall concentrate today on security for development.
	Just over two years ago our intervention against the Taliban was critical in the war against terrorism. I supported that war because it had the support of the United Nations and, most important, of most of the Arab states in the region. I regret that since then our attention, our assistance and so many of our troops have been drawn off to Iraq. We are plainly not giving the Afghan people the same priority. In this context, however, I welcome the commitment of the new NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who clearly intends to take Afghanistan as seriously as his predecessor. He is trying to expand the numbers and the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and to widen the membership of the US-led coalition forces fighting Al'Qaeda. Apart from the US and the UK, the Germans and Canadians have already sent substantial forces to Kabul and over 10 more of our NATO allies have expressed an interest in expanding ISAF beyond Kabul.
	The mandate is widening, and yet very little has happened. I understand that our own FCO has had to go round persuading our NATO allies to make actual contributions of troops and resources, and I hope that the Minister can give more details of progress. Can she also comment on the German defence Minister's statement last week that ISAF will be led from August by the Eurocorps?
	Meanwhile, many people believe that the situation is deteriorating. Casualties among both NATO troops and NGOs have been mounting. Most recently, and for the first time, there have been suicide bomb attacks. Two such attacks in Kabul only two weeks ago killed first a Canadian soldier and one Afghan, injuring 11 others, and then the following day a British soldier was killed and at least nine others were injured.
	Aid workers are increasingly targeted. When Bettina Goislard of UNHCR was murdered in Ghazni in November, she was the 14th aid worker to have died last year, among 84 European peacekeepers killed since the Taliban was ousted. UN missions are still suspended in many parts of the country. Tearfund is the latest charity to pull out of the south. Hundreds of Afghan civilians have died, including a party of schoolchildren hit by the Taliban in Kandahar last month. Some will say that that is the price of war. We all deplore the loss of life among British soldiers and others who are trying to help in Afghanistan. But we are learning a new lesson in peacekeeping: war and peace go hand in hand, and in spite of appearances we are still at war with the Taliban, just as we are at war with elements of the Ba'athists in Iraq.
	It is not a war which we can end, because it is in the nature of a country such as Afghanistan—a nation which welds together different ethnic groups and minorities—that not all Afghans are looking for unity. Among the Hazara people in the north who were persecuted by the Taliban, we would find warm support for the new nation and reconstruction. Hazara children get up very early to walk three hours to school and three hours back, demonstrating that normal life has resumed in many parts of the country. In the south and east, however, many families fear to go out of their houses. Many of the Pashtun who do not support President Karzai are vulnerable to pressure not only from the Taliban, but from their own commanders and drug dealers who hold small communities to ransom.
	We are dealing with a civil war in isolated mountainous areas that history suggests is impossible to win permanently. That fact is also exploited by the so-called Al'Qaeda network, linking former Mujaheddin and their Pakistani backers who live in twilight zones along the border. There, thousands of mainly US coalition forces seem holed up for years in their efforts to defeat invisible terrorists. Many so-called terrorists are no more than elusive Taliban with motorbikes and mobile phones who can inflict pain out of all proportion to their strength.
	Perhaps the Minister will agree that, in the public mind, that is no longer the necessary war that we went to fight when the Taliban was driven out, but an open-ended war of containment in a no-man's land in which there are only losers, including the intelligence services. The US-led coalition is not winning this hidden war any more than it is in Iraq, otherwise it would surely publicise its successes. Is it not a fact that we in the UK have a different approach? We are rightly concentrating less on the mountain war and more on security surrounding the elections and countering the drugs trade.
	The more urgent war is the one for hearts and minds, especially among the Pashtun, who are being told by some that elections and democracy are mere enemy tactics. Incidentally, I spoke to the moderate Pashtun leader Ahmed Gailani this morning, who happens to be in London. He pointed out that the Pashtun still have not been given their rightful place in government, a situation which may change only with free elections in the Pashtun areas.
	One way of giving local people more confidence has been through the provincial reconstruction teams, which provide stability in areas where aid workers are already active. However, so far those are mainly in the north. There is still some confusion between military and humanitarian work, but a good UK-led model has been established in Mazar-i Sharif. More than 50 NGOs are working in that area and co-operation has been good.
	It is widely acknowledged that that force has provided a degree of stability in Mazar and has played a mediating role between rival northern commanders. However, many NGOs are concerned that the other US-led PRTs do not follow the same pattern. There are a number of concerns about the attitude of US soldiers, but I will simply quote from a note from an Afghan NGO after its representatives had met a US-led PRT. It said:
	"They need to share information with NGOs (via the UN), and not just extract it from us".
	A greater concern has been the role of militia who answer only to themselves. That is a familiar problem for those engaged in the peace process in Sudan and elsewhere—that proxy commanders who are not so engaged in nation-building can be easily manipulated by the Taliban. Lakhdar Brahimi, during his last briefings as the outgoing UN special representative, said last month:
	"For too many Afghans, the daily insecurity they face comes not from resurgent extremism associated with the Taliban but from the predatory behaviour of local commanders and officials who nominally claim to represent the government . . . The threat factional forces pose to the peace process has been increasingly compounded by the terrorist tactics of extremists aimed at causing the peace process to fail altogether".
	The Minister will know how much influence radical elements in Pakistan, and specifically politicians in the north-west frontier province have on the border provinces in Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the Hezb-e Islami party of Afghanistan, broadcasts freely from Peshawar. Can the Minister say how far the latest India-Pakistan agreement has enabled President Musharraf to put more pressure on the MMA coalition in that province to support anti-terrorism measures there? Will that have any effect? What has happened to the non-intervention pact signed by Afghanistan's six neighbours? What guarantee of security does the coalition provide today for people living along the Pakistan border?
	What progress can the Minister report with security sector reform, one of the UK's key objectives? Army and police training is still painfully slow and inadequate, with thousands of defectors. Can we do more to help? Only a handful of our police advisers have gone out from the UK, and we are training a very small number of Afghan police officers in the UK. Once again, comparisons with Iraq are inevitable.
	Drug control, despite some success with the Iranian customs, is a major challenge. On the plus side, British intelligence apparently contributed to coalition success in an anti-narcotics raid in Badakhshan last month, but it is certainly not enough and is not meeting any of the targets in the Government's PSA. The UN programme and any attempts at diversification will be held back by the failure of central government to control areas in which militias are involved in the opium trade.
	I cannot of course mention every initiative which we are supporting in Afghanistan, most of which are extremely good. The BBC World Service continues to be a flagship of objectivity in promoting democracy at a community level and publicising the all-important registration process. Joan Ruddock made a remarkable speech in the Westminster Hall debate about the need for greater participation of women, recognising the achievements to date but pointing out the discrimination and injustice which continues. Women still form about only 20 per cent of the electorate, but there is still time to improve that figure.
	Afghanistan is a vast country and the NGOs are already suffering overstretch because of the responsibilities given to them to make up for weaknesses in government services. I hope that the Minister can say something about how we rectify that problem. Mr Gareth Thomas made the important point on 29 January that NGOs cannot possibly cover the ground on their own. I know, for example, that Save the Children Fund has taken on an enormous task in managing a health programme around Mazar-i Sharif.
	In conclusion, the uncertainties and the confusion at the end of a very long civil war are inevitably still delaying the process of reconstruction. Those people who believe in national unity are looking forward to the promised changes represented by the new constitution and the elections. But those changes require that the Government continue to command respect from all the commanders and that donors fulfil the promises made at Bonn, backed up by the coalition's claimed guarantee of security along the Pakistan border. I am sure that we will hear from the Minister about the planned conference in Germany.
	However, I am not sure that the international community is keeping the promises that it has made to Afghanistan. The present political and military scene is still far from the vision of unity in Afghanistan which the international community presented after October 2001. The elections will tell, but the majority of Afghans outside Kabul remain unaware and uncommitted and are still dazed by the ravages of war, whose consequences are visible around them. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has provided the House with a well timed opportunity to look at the security situation in Afghanistan, particularly just after the NATO ministers' meeting in Munich at the weekend. He is quite right to express reservations about the failure of the international community to honour the promises that were made to Afghanistan at the time that we went in. I draw your Lordships' attention to the UN Secretary-General's warning to the General Assembly at the beginning of December. He said:
	"The increase in attacks on United Nations staff and other international and Afghan civilians engaged in providing assistance and furthering the peace process is a matter of the utmost concern".
	The situation has continued to worsen since then. The 5,500 troops in the NATO-led ISAF force are woefully inadequate even for the task of maintaining law and order in Kabul and the north, while the Afghan National Army, estimated to number 7,000 men at the moment, has already lost 3,000 men through desertion, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, and is not an operational force. People in Afghanistan are not convinced that terrorism will be defeated when half the country is a "no-go" area and the suicide bombers are killing ISAF personnel and civilians, even in Kabul.
	As the noble Earl said, NATO's response has been to create five new provincial reconstruction teams and the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said that Britain would be prepared to lead one of those teams. Will the Minister say where the additional forces are to come from? The PRTs vary between 80 and 300 in size, so we are not talking about large numbers in the field, but they require logistical and back office support and there would have to be provision for rotation so that they did not have to remain there permanently.
	The PRTs are not an adequate response to the level of insecurity in most of the country. I do not think that there is one in Badakhshan, as was mentioned by the noble Earl. If there had been, it would have been unable to stop or prevent the fighting between the two warlords who control the drug business in that area. The mandate of the PRTs is not precise and that may deter some of the candidates from signing up. But given the size of the PRTs, they are clearly not designed to cope with factional conflicts or terrorism. The Kandahar PRT has become a major target for terrorist attacks and the same is happening in Ghazni and Jalalabad. How does ISAF propose to cope with the escalation of terrorism by neo-Taliban forces and what will be the relationship between the expanded ISAF and the 11,000-strong US operation "Enduring Freedom", which continues to look for Taliban and other terrorist groups in the region and runs its own PRTs?
	The noble Earl gave figures for casualties. In January, 15 people were killed and 60 were injured when two bombs exploded within minutes of each other in Kandahar city. The same day, 12 Hazaras were killed when they were travelling through the Baghran district of Helmand province. In the past six months alone 400 civilians have been killed in southern Afghanistan and in the past nine months 13 aid workers have been killed in the south and east.
	Humanitarian agencies are leaving. The noble Earl mentioned Tearfund, a UK-based organisation which had 45 staff working in 28 villages around Kandahar. They are the latest to go. Not one NGO now works in the villages and rural areas around Kandahar and only MSF and InterSOS have a skeleton staff inside the city. The UN also says that it is suspending most of its operations in the south-east provinces of Nangarhar and Kunar after a series of explosions and the vandalising of a girls' primary school. Paktika and Ghanzni provinces are considered to be high risk areas. In the south, the UN has withdrawn completely, except for the immediate surroundings of Kandahar and one district in Helmand province.
	Surely that is handing the terrorists a victory. They want Afghanistan to descend into the chaos and poverty in which only they and the drug barons, with whom they have a symbiotic relationship, can prosper. Instead of withdrawing, the response should have been to put more security forces into those provinces. Effectively, a line seems to have been drawn that cuts Afghanistan in half, abandoning all the communities south of that line to their fate. There will be no education for women below that line and anyone who collaborated with the UN or the aid agencies will be at risk of persecution or even assassination. A few days ago a district official in Uruzgan province was blown up, together with his wife, three sons and two brothers. If incidents of that kind continue to be unchecked and those responsible are not rooted out and punished, the extremists will flourish. Sooner or later much larger forces will be needed to deal with them, both in Afghanistan and abroad. It is suicidally short-sighted for the international community to withdraw in the face of that terrorist aggression.
	How can the international community spend the money available for reconstruction if there is no one on the ground? The US has allocated for Afghanistan 1.5 billion dollars in 2004 and 1.2 billion dollars in 2005. No doubt there are comparable sums on offer from the European Union and other donors. The transitional assistance programme for the year ending March 2004 came to 815 million dollars. Will that money have been spent? If not, will it be possible to say how much of the shortfall is attributable to the security problem in the south and south-east? For example, how much will have been spent of the 8 million dollars allocated to narcotics control and drug cultivation?
	The UN Secretary-General told the Security Council in July that cultivation, production and trafficking in illegal narcotics threatened not only peace in Afghanistan but had regional and global consequences. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1.7 million people, 7 per cent of the population, are directly involved in poppy cultivation and trading. They produce three quarters of the global output of heroin. In 2003 that cultivation grossed 2.3 billion dollars and people working for it earned around 3,900 dollars per family. That compares with an average national wage of 2 dollars a day. When those figures are looked at, the FAO's request for 25.5 million dollars over five years to finance alternative crops in the poppy growing areas is pitifully small. On the BBC's "PM" programme on Monday it was reported that there are now thousands of addicts in Kabul itself. They have one treatment unit with six places, which is totally inundated by the patients applying to be treated there. The problem is that there is no other crop which is anything like as profitable and the alternatives would require substantial capital input to start them up. Can the Minister say what positive suggestions were made at the international counter narcotics conference on Afghanistan held in Kabul a couple of days ago?
	As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, our attention has been distracted by Iraq. Perhaps because of that we do not have the resources to ensure that Afghanistan becomes a democratic country not just with elections, but with functioning institutions, a state in which force is concentrated in the hands of the government and everyone joins together to defeat terrorism and to rebuild civil society. The war against Saddam may have removed one dictator, but it also seriously impaired our ability to counter the enemies of peace and harmony everywhere else. Afghanistan still presents a challenge to the ideals of freedom and justice to which the world has not yet risen.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate about Afghanistan and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having introduced it. I am particularly concerned about what has happened to women. I remember that years ago, when I was still a trade union official, one of my colleagues joined a group of women trade unionists who went to Afghanistan to see for themselves what the situation was. It was before the war which so devastated that country. It was when President Najibullah was in power. The regime was not popular in the West as it was seen as pro-Soviet.
	However, my colleague, who was an experienced and respected trade union official, reported that women had access to education, to health and child care and to employment. Many were active in public life. She reported favourably on the progress that was being made.
	Then of course there was the rebellion against the regime—a rebellion which was supported by America and ourselves, incidentally. Indeed, the National Security Adviser to the then President, Zbigniew Brzezinski, actually boasted of US support for the Mujahidin, referring to an "Afghan trap" which drew the Russians into invading with the results we now know.
	The West continued to support the Mujahadin—many of them Islamic extremists—who at that time included Osama bin Laden. They were described as "freedom fighters". The Russians withdrew eventually after a brutal war, but the victors were certainly not democrats. On the contrary, they were themselves responsible for appalling attacks on civilians, much of the brutality being directed against women. The lawless anarchy was so great that when the Taliban took over, the population almost welcomed the relative security that it brought.
	Some of the Mujahidin had been motivated by a general hatred of western culture, and in particular of the relative freedom that had existed for women. They had murdered teachers in schools where girls were being taught and burnt the schools down because they did not want women to be educated. The Taliban, as we know, while they brought more security, nevertheless introduced the most extreme aspects of Sharia law. Women were barred from education, from healthcare, from jobs and from public life and were forced to abide by the strictest dress code, suffering beatings for the slightest infringement.
	Women who had been educated under the Najibullah regime attempted, at enormous risk to themselves, to pass on what they had learnt to girls in secret, as they were concerned lest generations of women would grow up without education and quite unable to earn any sort of livelihood. Women widowed in the wars were left with no alternative but to beg for themselves and their children.
	I refer to those past events to illustrate that the past 20 years has seen a culture develop which is profoundly discriminatory towards women. Indeed, it is not too much to say that recent regimes, until the present one, have actually been led by individuals with an almost pathological hatred of women. The present regime is of course trying to restore rights to women. Some women have emerged to play a role in public life, but it must require enormous courage. It is difficult and enormously complicated. I understand that the rule of the regime does not extend much beyond Kabul. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, illustrated that in his interesting address today.
	Parts of the country appear to be under the domination of the very warlords who were responsible for previous brutalities. Bin Laden has not been captured and the Taliban appear to be active in certain areas. Moreover, the drug culture which, for all their faults, the Taliban appear to have stamped out, has made a reappearance, much to the concern of neighbouring countries and to ourselves. And there is the culture of violence which so often accompanies regimes where there is drug dependency. The long years of war, food shortages, loss of homes with many people becoming homeless refugees in their own country, have had a devastating effect upon women, often left alone as a result of the casualties of war and often the sole support of young children.
	We now have an obligation to try to bring peace to this ravaged country and, fortunately, there now seems to be international co-operation to that end. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will tell us a great deal more about that today. There is an urgent need to bring support and succour to the women of Afghanistan who have suffered so much in the wars that have ruined the country and for which they bear no responsibility at all. They are the real victims. I know that the Minister is herself concerned about these problems and I wait to hear from her with interest.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is some 12 years since I was last in contact with a large number of Afghan refugees. I, like other speakers, am deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate today. It gives us a chance to focus on an area that is almost being forgotten by the media in the light of other issues.
	I want to endorse, without repeating, every word spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on the situation of women. There is a sliding backwards for women in Afghanistan because they cannot exert any of the rights which so many of us take for granted. They need our help and they deserve it. I hope that special measures can be taken, particularly through the provincial reconstruction teams, to help women. I shall be grateful for anything the Minister can say on that score.
	One of the problems we are facing in Afghanistan is the crucial need to establish security, for security without development means no progress. It is a stultifying situation in any war zone simply to keep the peace and do no more. That is why the Mazar-e-Sharif provincial reconstruction team, led by the British, is being so successful. The clusters of lightly armed soldiers are there to assist in rebuilding, but the difficulty is that most PRTs have a vague mandate. Furthermore, they do not have security backing to enable them to concentrate on the reconstruction for which they were set up. They receive air support from the coalition, but they are not part of ISAF, although they have the ability to draw on ISAF's experience. Can the Minister say what we can do to give these provincial reconstruction teams better support to get on with the job? Can we not divert or extend some of the work of the NATO contingent running ISAF to help them with that support so that they can reconstruct?
	There is good news coming out of Afghanistan. There has been growth in the economy and more than 2 million refugees have returned home. Yet, thank God, there has not been the kind of humanitarian crisis about which we hear too often in other parts of the world. The Loya Jirga is giving some legitimacy to the country at last. But it is easy to say that without a great deal more sustenance from the international community, the efforts of President Hamid Karzai and others may not succeed. We are at a tipping point with the situation in Afghanistan. Groups of people have been polled on the coming election and 90 per cent have said that they will vote. But of course that will not cover the whole country, as several noble Lords have said.
	In addition to those first two issues, where else could we do more to help bring about stability in Afghanistan? Clearly, more soldiers and peacekeepers would make a big difference. I have enough experience in this field to know that it is probably better to divert people to help the reconstruction in Afghanistan than it is to have huge numbers protecting other places in the world, and I believe it to be necessary.
	I said that the economy has, indeed, grown by some 28 per cent, but it is still less than half the size it was in 1978. Therefore, what can be done to help the economy to grow? Clearly, Afghanistan needs more food to be grown. However, without water that will not happen. I have heard the argument put forward many times that if we give the Afghans more water, they will simply grow more poppies. I consider that to be a thoroughly defeatist attitude. I believe that if we could devote more of the resources going through the PRTs to the provision of water and basic agricultural assistance, we could help the local communities to gain greater stability through their own efforts.
	I note that less than 1 billion dollars of the 4.5 billion dollars promised at the Tokyo conference in 2002 has yet materialised. Further, there is a capacity problem in introducing the resources through development into the areas which are secure enough to start that off.
	I have always believed that nothing succeeds like success. The message that gets around is that, when a local community begins to thrive because of the efforts that it makes itself, others want to copy it. Therefore, I hope that we can take the best examples from the great people in the NGOs, DfID and the Foreign Office who are working in Afghanistan and ensure that the messages of success, which do exist, although in too small a part, can be spread to the areas which have not yet engaged in development to any great extent. If we could concentrate more of the resource on water and agriculture, I believe that we would see success.
	However, the final area on which I want to concentrate for a moment is the drug situation. Without tackling that to a greater extent, we shall not maintain whatever security we manage to establish through the forces which are there. The Counter-Narcotics Department, which has been instituted, has admirable goals: of 70 per cent eradication by 2008 and 100 per cent by 2013. Indeed, we, the British Government, are financing that. But that team is poorly equipped. It is by no means able to reach the goals that it has set itself. Very few of the 28 staff officers in the Counter-Narcotics Department have the relevant experience; there is little money for communication or vehicles; and there is very little money for intelligence gathering, which is a particularly dangerous pursuit in the atmosphere which prevails in Afghanistan.
	I know that Mirwais Yassini, the director of the CND, has given us some frightening statistics for the basic scheme which could help the country. He has referred to a need for 300 million dollars over three years. However, it seems to me that, unless we are prepared to make that effort, we shall lose out on the gains that we make from the security that we provide.
	Afghanistan is an almost forgotten country at present. I believe we owe it to the bravery of people such as Hamid Karzai and those who seek to re-establish order in Afghanistan to do more than we have been able to do thus far. As a country, we have already made some good and thoughtful contributions. We have set the scene very well. However, we wish that others would copy us—not as a form of flattery, but as a form of vital necessity for ordinary Afghans.
	In the debate which our colleagues from another place held in Westminster Hall on 29 January, one area was highlighted repeatedly—that is, the need to help the Afghan people to build up their police force and their judiciary. That is a critical element in continuing the security that foreign forces may help to bring. I hope that the Minister is also able to comment on that in her response.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, as I did in Brussels many years ago, and I want to thank and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on his initiative in holding this debate. After a year in which Iraq stole all the headlines and dominated debates in this House, it is important not to be distracted. We need to keep our eye on, and our commitment to, the crucial transition of Afghanistan from one of the most failed of failed states to one where there is stability, democracy, respect for human rights and economic development, which it is the international community's objective to bring about in that country, however unpromising the initial prospects.
	During 2003, there were some signs of just that kind of distraction and weakening of political will and of the drying up of resources. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate that that is not so. It is important to remember that, although the primary cause of Afghanistan's failure as a state was the Soviet intervention in 1979, it was the neglect of the country by the international community in the years following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 which contributed substantially to the disaster which befell Afghanistan in 2001.
	Any consideration of how things are going in Afghanistan must begin, as did many other noble Lords, with the security situation. Without better security, there will simply not be stability, democracy and development in the country. And currently the auguries seem to me to be somewhere short of brilliant. The provincial warlords are still dominant; the writ of the central government does not run far outside Kabul; and the south of the country is bandit territory. It is good that some efforts have been made by deploying security and development teams in the north to remedy some of those problems. The fact that NATO, rather than a rotating cast of countries, is now in charge of security assistance to the government has real potential. Perhaps the Minister can say how the incoming Secretary-General of NATO is faring in his praiseworthy efforts to strengthen and extend NATO's presence.
	But the running sore is the south. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the remnants of the Taliban are receiving substantial assistance from across the border in Pakistan. Of course, the tribal territories astride the Afghan-Pakistan border have been a source of marauding and destabilisation since the time of the British Empire. But it is surely high time for the US and NATO to enlist from President Musharraf more wholehearted support in clamping down on this than has been forthcoming hitherto.
	As to the politics of Afghanistan, the recent adoption of a new constitution is clearly an important step forward. But the fate of previous constitutions does not encourage one to put too much confidence in that development alone. Should it prove possible to hold free and fair elections this summer, that will be an even more significant move. I hope that the Afghan Government and their external supporters will not be easily discouraged from that course, even if insurgent activities make it impossible to hold the elections countrywide. In Cambodia in 1992, it was not possible to hold elections in the part of the country controlled by the Khmer Rouge. The UN, rightly in my view, refused to postpone the elections and the Khmer Rouge were ultimately the losers.
	However, there remains one serious weakness in the new Afghan political structure—the lack of the wholehearted support of the Pashtun tribes, without which no Afghan government can hope to achieve stability and sustainability. I realise that neither Gulbuddin Hekmatyar nor the remnants of the Taliban leadership are acceptable interlocutors. However, until it proves possible to win over the support of these tribes and to separate them from their former leaders, the whole construct that we are so laboriously putting together will remain fragile and vulnerable.
	Some pessimism would also seem to be in order with regard to the production and trading of drugs. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the latest figures and the prospects in that respect. The drug problem is closely linked to that of security and to the political allegiance of the south of the country. If we cannot find alternative means of livelihood for the inhabitants of these arid and largely barren areas, we are not going to wean them from the drug trade. No amount of repression will on its own do the trick; there has to be carrot as well as stick, which I understand is also the view of Her Majesty's Government. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Baroness, as other noble Lords have asked, where she thinks last week's drugs conference in Kabul leaves this crucial issue.
	Over the centuries instability in Afghanistan has occurred as much because of the meddling of its neighbours as of its own indigenous centrifugal tendencies. At least the country is now spared the fate of being a pawn of the great powers, as it was in the 19th and 20th centuries. But, in their place, it has neighbours as potentially unstable as itself. I should like to believe that they would have too much on their hands within their own borders to meddle in Afghanistan. But I do not believe that, so I shall repeat a suggestion that I originally made in this House two and-a-half years ago; namely, that we should canvass the possibility of building on the basis of existing commitments and getting a binding, legal international convention to which Afghanistan and all its neighbours would subscribe, and under which all would commit themselves to working for mutual security and the avoidance of any meddling in the affairs of others—a kind of central Asian OSCE, if you like. I have no illusion that such a convention would on its own solve all Afghanistan's problems; but it would, I suggest, provide a solid framework into which to insert the Afghanistan that we are trying to rebuild.
	In the end we come back always to that basic task—the rebuilding of a state which has failed; and whose failure has, quite unprecedentedly, made it a threat to us all, because of the way Al'Qaeda ruthlessly exploited its weakness. This issue of failing and failed states is one of the crucial threats and challenges faced by the international community and we are still far from having mastered it. I shall not go into the question of how to stop states failing in the first place, except to say that, as with conflict prevention, we need to concentrate more of our efforts on avoiding the problem than on waiting for it to happen and then expensively and painstakingly remedying it.
	In Afghanistan, we are well beyond that. The state failed and we are now trying to help it to rebuild itself. Afghanistan is of course not the only place that we are trying to do this. In Bosnia and in Liberia similar exercises are under way. If we fail to last the course and make a success of these state-rebuilding exercises, we should have no illusions—we shall have undermined the credibility of our whole approach to international relations and we shall have grievously set back the whole effort to find collective responses to challenges which in the past have simply been regarded as too difficult to be worth taking on. The implications of such failure would be far reaching and thoroughly negative. I would suggest, therefore, that it is surely worth a lot of effort and a sustained commitment to avoid that happening.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the noble Earl is indeed to be congratulated on introducing the debate about a sad country with a tragic recent history, where many very tragic events have recently taken place. Afghanistan seems to have become one of those countries which is almost a case study in what happens when many things go wrong, and we in the West look on feeling rather helpless—over and above the consequences of our rather ambiguous relationship with that country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, alluded, and the recent developments there towards an agreed constitution.
	This is one of those debates when although the House is not very full, one is very aware of the weight of experience and knowledge around. I want to concentrate briefly on three areas of concern, some of which have been touched on by others—and perhaps in more detail. The first issue is the question of attacks on non-governmental organisations, including the case of the Tearfund workers.
	NGO staff should be able to move around any country in some kind of reasonable safety because they are politically neutral and their primary concern lies elsewhere. But, sadly, as with the attack on the Red Cross worker in Iraq, that is no longer the case. The trouble is that we in the West can be our own greatest enemies. President George Bush may not have been altogether wise in ordering NGOs publicly to identify themselves as part of the US operations in the country or risk losing their funding. One wonders why that step was taken. If Bishops wanted to get some kind of public credit for every good deed done in their dioceses, there would be some very interesting newspaper headlines.
	The sad plight of Tearfund in southern Afghanistan is another frustrating case in point. It was working in 28 villages within a 70-kilometre radius of Kandahar—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about this earlier—with a team of 45 staff. In the past six months, 400 civilians have been killed in that part of the country. We are also told that 13 aid workers have been killed in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan in the past nine months.
	We can surely endorse the hope expressed by Nigel Timmins—Tearfund's operations manager in Afghanistan—that it will be able to return to the Kandahar region as soon as it is safely possible.
	Secondly, I turn to the area covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, which is the increasing problem of drug dependency and the alarming growth in power of the drug barons. According to recent reliable statistics, around 4 per cent of the Afghan population are habitual users of heroin. Opium production accounts for 50 per cent of the country's GDP, which suggests that not nearly enough progress is being made on reconstructing the country, or setting up an economy which is not only viable and legal in international terms, but also not so dependent on only one thing.
	Opium growth has increased hugely since the war. I am reliably informed that one of the basic causes is that the purchase of the seeds fuels this instability because opium farmers have to pay back the costs with the crop itself—a classic case, if ever there was one, of a vicious circle. The problem has, of course, far wider implications. One is reminded of the wise remarks of St Augustine in one of his sermons that,
	"swollen rivers are made out of small drips of water".
	Not only is the drug trade undermining Afghanistan as a nation, it also funds international terrorism. We are told that the Afghan Government are looking for 300 million dollars to set up a fund to reduce opium production by 70 per cent within four years. I am reliably informed that the UK has already agreed to contribute in the region of 128 million dollars over the next three years. Big initiatives so often have small beginnings. It is important—I would say vital—that the international community sees the importance of this campaign, not just for our own safety—that would be a very cynical motivation—but to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people.
	Thirdly, there is the plight of women, a matter alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I know we must tread carefully because different countries have different cultures, but the facts speak for themselves. Village life in many places seems to lock women into a constant production line. Girls are engaged at 10, married at 12 and give birth, preferably to a boy, constantly from the age of 14 until they can no longer do so, often because they die in childbirth. The country has the highest known rates of maternal mortality.
	I shall not, I hope, fall into the trap of cultural imperialism, of dictating to Afghans about their marriage practices and family life. But it seems to me that—if I may indulge in something of an understatement—important issues need to be addressed about education, health precautions and hospital care.
	Much of what is needed is dependent on the restoration of a proper peace. That seems all too scarce outside Kabul and even in Kabul there are serious concerns. The NGOs fear that the provincial reconstruction teams are not working well enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. Can the Government and other Governments deny that they have been distracted by the problems in Iraq and that resources are spread too thinly? The enormous sums now being spent on Iraq show up the forgotten state of Afghanistan, which has experienced no fewer than 23 years of war and drought.
	It is worth noting that in his introductory speech, the new NATO Secretary-General said that his number one priority was not Iraq, but Afghanistan. There are signs of hope in Afghanistan. As a Christian and a theologian, I believe fundamentally in the virtue of hope. Hope often begins when situations seem to have irretrievably broken down.
	One sign of hope is the new constitution, but that has involved making deals with many of the warlords and there are perhaps now more risks than ever. The withdrawal of organisations such as Tearfund does not bode well. The recent deterioration in security could make it more likely that the decline in asylum applications from Afghans will be reversed, so it is in the Government's interest to work harder for peace and security in that country.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, when your Lordships read the list of speakers today—indeed, when your Lordships heard the speeches that have already been made and hear those that I am delighted to know will be made—many may have wondered why I am attempting to speak when I do not have military knowledge or knowledge of overseas aid or of working overseas. One thing has bitten me: curiosity. I have never been further east than Damascus, yet Afghanistan is a land of enormous mystery, as we have heard in the debate.
	I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate and for all his work since I knew him almost 40 years ago at Oxford to attempt to benefit situations that are endemic but, at present, unique to Afghanistan. I must say that his Motion is a fair mouthful. Like the right reverend Prelate, I shall attempt to concentrate briefly on three items with which the Minister may be able to assist me—indeed they may be raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who is to follow me.
	First, the Motion refers to defeating terrorism. Am I right in thinking that the current strength of ISAF is about 5,500 troops? Is that not a substantial drain on United Kingdom forces, let alone on NATO forces, which are otherwise committed elsewhere—quite rightly, as the right reverend Prelate said? Afghanistan is a major problem. If we take our eye off Afghanistan and concentrate unduly on Iraq, there may be longer-term problems. Am I right in thinking that about 5,500 troops are spread over 38 provinces of that enormous country—or perhaps they are less spread? Am I right in thinking that there is a substantial number—approximately 8,500—of United States forces still in the north of the country?
	We have heard a great deal in the debate about the link to terrorism, which is interwoven in the noble Earl's Motion, and to the Taliban. My noble friend Lady Chalker referred to warlords and the drug trade. I hope that I am not unduly naive but not cynical when I wonder how much is indeed what perhaps I may call "normal warlordism" in that enormous country. We have heard about tribal problems with the Pashtuns and other tribes in the north. What concerns me a trifle is how much of that customary disorder is tolerated by Pakistan. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I think it was, referred to further efforts that might be made to speak to leaders in Pakistan.
	What rather shocks me is that 14 aid workers have lost their lives during the past nine months in the south of Afghanistan. Is it really true, that, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned, 400 civilians have lost their lives? It is a big country and we might consider the loss of life on the roads or elsewhere in this country, but have 400 people been murdered?
	I understand that there are more than 100,000 armed militiamen who may have a rifle or be available. In moving his Motion, the noble Earl mentioned that there may be a militiaman this morning with his rifle and motorbike, but this afternoon or this evening he may no longer be a militiamen because he has put away his rifle. That adds to the considerable problems of security and terrorism.
	I for one will relish hearing what the Minister has to say about the coupling of national reconstruction of economic and normal life in Afghanistan with security. What is the basic infrastructure in Kabul, let alone elsewhere in the north or the south of Afghanistan? Is it still basic? Is it improving? I certainly hope so.
	I understand that the Finance Minister, Mr Ashraf Ghani, is looking for about 20 billion dollars to try to set up a strong central government within reach of Kabul. I think that my noble friend Lady Chalker mentioned that 1 billion dollars had arrived of the 4.5 billion dollars that were promised at the Tokyo conference. That is a tremendous start and, as the right reverend Prelate said, great events tend to start fairly slowly, but there seems to be some hope. I think he mentioned the figure that has been promised, and I hope that it is delivered by the Government; no doubt the Minister can confirm that.
	We have heard that coupled with security, terror and the economy is the appalling problem of opium and other drugs. I was interested to hear of a drugs conference that may have been quite successful in Kabul last week. The noble Lord, Avebury, mentioned that 75 per cent of heroin worldwide originates in Afghanistan. I understood that 90 per cent of the heroin consumed in the UK originates in Afghanistan and comes here by devious means. Is it really the case, as I understand it, that in 26, 27 or even 28 of the 32 provinces of Afghanistan, the economy is to no small degree dominated by the drugs trade?
	We have heard from my noble friend Lady Chalker and others of the necessity of finding some other form of sustenance for the inhabitants of those dry, arid provinces. It is fine for me and other noble Lords involved in agriculture in places such as Angus in Scotland. It is a little different in Afghanistan, and I have sympathy for the farmers there. I understand that it is estimated that 3,600 tonnes of opium left Afghanistan in 2003. Enormous sums are paid to producers in Afghanistan, of which 25 to 30 per cent goes to the Taliban, which is a serious problem.
	I was going to ask about the wonderful work of the United Kingdom forces in Mazar-i-Sharif, about which I have heard, but as soon as I sit down we will hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who has more practical experience and much more detailed knowledge than I have.
	Will the Minister alleviate my curiosity to a small extent by spelling out the long-term aim of the United Kingdom's defence forces and what this country can do to assist economic development, in whatever way, starting with civil agriculture, in Afghanistan? What is unique to that enormous country that is different from other forms of aid, which is no doubt very well spent by the noble Baroness and the Government? I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate. Everyone appreciates his enormous expertise. I thank noble Lords for allowing a curious Back-Bencher to raise his voice today. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's response.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I, too, welcome warmly the noble Earl's initiative in bringing the House's attention back to Afghanistan. As has been said many times today, affairs there have been overshadowed by events in Iraq. However, what needs to be done in Afghanistan poses a significantly greater challenge than that which confronts us in Iraq.
	When the United Kingdom inserted and led the first International Security Assistance Force into Kabul in January 2002, I said that we would be in for a long haul, and nothing has happened since then to change my view. The warlord culture in Afghanistan, so very different from what happens in Iraq, complicates enormously the task of trying to help the country to a new, cohesive future. The problems that we encounter today, with the activities of the Taliban and the difficulties in managing the Pakistan border, exacerbate the challenge that confronts us. I support, in particular, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the need for more Pakistani involvement.
	There are several areas on which we need to progress, if we are to move forward the process of making Afghanistan a stable country in harmony with itself and its neighbours, ranging from economic, aid, reconstruction, diplomatic, counter-narcotics, security and so forth. I shall concentrate briefly on some aspects of security.
	First, I was delighted when NATO took over the International Security Assistance Force. It was good for the country, because of its multinational nature, good for the region, and good for NATO to show its military value. I now hear talk about expanding NATO/ISAF out of Kabul. Can the Minister say whether it is about expanding the ISAF per se into another city, or expanding the ISAF effect through, say, provisional reconstruction teams (PRTs)? If it is the former, where will the 5,000 or so troops required for that come from? A Kabul-type operation in another city will require 3,000 to 5,000 troops, and we cannot afford to deplete the contingency in Kabul. Such an increase in commitment is well beyond the capacity or will of the Eurocorps, which, I understand, might be the next duty formation, or, if it is not, beyond the capacity of whichever NATO high-readiness force headquarters or composite headquarters has the next rotation. How will the force protection of such a second ISAF be managed, as the United States is already overstretched? That is entering bottomless-pit territory, and we would need to proceed with extreme caution.
	Secondly, if we are talking about expanding the ISAF effect through provisional reconstruction teams, that holds more promise. I commend the work done by the United Kingdom provisional reconstruction team in Mazar-i-Sharif and reinforce the noble Earl's comments. The small team is made up of around only 20, compared with, for example, the 200-strong German PRT, most of which is force protection, working under NATO command since January in Kunduz. Our UK team is highly effective and is deploying our Armed Forces' unique talent for such work in establishing relationships, friendships and so on through charm, good humour and sheer professionalism. It does not have an aggressive stance—the same cannot be said for some other PRTs—and is an ideal model, if that is what is meant by expanding the ISAF effect.
	Thirdly, if we are not to be in Afghanistan for ever, we must be able to hand over to the country responsibility for its own security. The Afghan army and police are the apparatus for that, not least to build indigenous confidence, but they need to be recruited, trained and retained. It has already been mentioned that that is not happening very quickly at present. In parallel with the training and construction of the Afghan army and police force, the process of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) of the tens of thousands of militia, who by and large are not working with the grain in so far as concerns overall security, needs expediting. What progress is being made on those two important fronts?
	The final security issue that I wish to mention is the command structure. The United States forces, which also provide force protection for most PRTs, for example, operate separately from NATO. Notwithstanding the different roles of the United States forces and NATO, the separate command structure complicates the overall task. A unified command would surely be more sensible, and we should encourage the United States, if they are considering the possibility of the European command taking over responsibility for Afghanistan from the central command—I understand that there is some thinking along those lines. The SACEUR is the commander-in-chief of EUCOM and also commands the NATO forces, so the significance of having EUCOM take over in Afghanistan is that the commanders-in-chief would be one and the same man.
	The efforts of NATO and the United Nations in Afghanistan are to be commended, but there is a long way to go before a satisfactory security situation is established. We must ensure that our eye does not leave this ball, or indeed the Afghanistan ball in general. This debate serves that purpose well.

Lord Elton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am very much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for this opportunity. My noble friend Lord Lyell used an emotive phrase a moment ago, when he asked how much this was "normal warlordism". That serves to remind us what an extraordinarily new and important thing we are attempting in that part of the world. In the past, on such an occasion, we have always tried to empower one faction or another to take over and be friendly to us. We are now trying to hand over to the indigenous people the ability to control their own affairs. That is an entirely praiseworthy and splendid thing to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, failure would be an unmitigated disaster, not merely in the region, but for the whole perception of what good government and world co-operation now are.
	The Government pin their hope on the success of democracy, as do we. However, as has been said often already, democracy cannot take place except in a fairly settled and secure environment. I was therefore surprised to read the following comments by the Minister of State during a recent Westminster Hall debate:
	"We are examining what support we can provide to a district stabilisation programme, for which the Afghan Government are seeking support, to spread the authority of the state from Kabul to other districts, particularly in the south and east. That programme will rebuild the institutions of the police—such as police stations".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/04; col. 148WH.]
	It is a bit late still to be examining that. Much of what is going on is happening a bit late, including the arrival of money. It is not enough to deliver promised aid a month or two before the election that it is intended to secure, because it must then go through the labyrinthine pipes and corridors that deliver it in the form of cement-mixers, schools, teachers, et cetera. We are using sandbags to build a wall against a tide that is already rising. There is an urgency about this that the media have lost sight of, and therefore there is a danger that we will lose sight of it as well.
	Can the noble Baroness tell us what progress towards democracy has been made in terms of what percentage of the presumed electoral population has been registered? More particularly, in which provinces have they been registered? I was recently on a parliamentary delegation to Pakistan, and I see this from a slightly Pakistani angle, perhaps. I see the present regime in Kabul through their eyes, as being friendly to the Northern Alliance and its successors, and them being friendly to India. The old bugbear of Indian encirclement is raising its head in that part of Afghanistan that is next to Pakistan, and moreover next to that part of Pakistan over which the central government of Pakistan have least control.
	I was encouraged to hear that the Pakistan army is now deployed in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. I was not entirely surprised to hear reports that the concentrations of terrorists—if that is what we call them—in those areas had a tendency to disappear 24 hours before the army launched an attack on their positions.
	It therefore becomes clear that what is essential for the stability of this area, externally as well as internally, is proper Pashtun representation in the government that emerges. That will have to rest on the electoral infrastructure now being put in place in this south-east region, in which there have been so many casualties. It was alleged by Mr Kevan Jones in another place on 29 January that £40,000 a head was being offered for the assassination of aid workers in that area. The Minister will probably not want to comment on that, but it lurks as an unpleasant memory in my mind if in none other.
	Like my noble friend Lord Lyell, I speak with great diffidence among so many noble Lords who know so much more than I do about this problem and this area. However, I understand that so far the response of the international effort, led by the Americans, is to increase the number of PRTs deployed in that area. Will the Minister confirm that they will be manned using the same number of people as are already there? This is a dangerous thinning out of the effort in what I regard as the most crucial area of all.
	Democracy will not arrive for more than a minute without some sort of physical stability. It will not survive for more than a minute unless there is some sort of economic stability. In the same debate that I referred to earlier, the Minister of State said that at the conference last March,
	"The international community responded at that development forum, pledging more than two billion dollars for this financial year to fund some 90 per cent of the Afghan Government's budget. The Afghans believe that they will be able to raise the remaining balance".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/04; col. 144WH.]
	That involves some 10 per cent. The right reverend Prelate told us that the poppy trade delivers something like 50 per cent of the GNP, and it is our aim to reduce that contribution to nothing. That means that the Afghans have nothing but aid to live on until some alternative source of revenue is produced.
	Some years ago, I was in Thailand, looking at their operation to eliminate the growing of poppies. That effort was a bit easier there, because of the terrain and communications. Farmers who removed their poppies, which involved a 12-month cycle, were able to replace them with salad crops, which involve more of a 12-week cycle, and fly them down crisp and fresh to Bangkok, where they fetched a good price. This was a good system—it was better than that for coffee, which has a regenerative cycle of one to two years. What is being replaced here, if we go back to the traditional crops, is apricots and almonds and dried fruit. The trees have all been burnt down. That is like cutting down the olive groves in ancient Greece: it was the worst thing that could be done. How long will it be before those can be brought back? Ten years? Fifteen?
	Afghanistan's international benefactors must either be prepared to shoulder a heavy load for a long time or discover some innovative form of product. If they do not, they will have to abandon the scheme, which will put us back 25 to 50 years in world history. The first alternative needs to find some means of preventing Afghanistan becoming debased into an aid-dependent community. We have a duty to those people. We have a duty to our own people to curtail the sale of heroin on our streets, but we also have a duty to give the people whose living we are taking away something honourable, constructive and worthwhile to do. I would like to hear what the Government's intentions are.
	We must also avoid donor fatigue. We have set our hands to the plough, and we must drive it to the end of the furrow. That will cost us. As I have often said in the Chamber, it is time that we woke up to the fact that we will not have an impact on the acute unfairness and immorality of the difference between the wealth of our part of the world and the poverty of others, unless we pay for it. That will be electorally unpopular and dangerous. We need an all-party agreement on a programme and a proportion of the budget, so that resources will not be chiselled away at every election, with parties saying, "We'll reduce taxes more than them because we will give less away to the third world".
	It is a straightforward and painful moral problem, and we must face it. Afghanistan is at the leading edge of it, and I hope that the Minister will take to heart my plea that some sort of talks should be started between the parties, so that dealing with the matter can be made politically feasible.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing this important debate. In his cogent speech, he made it clear how complex and difficult the situation in Afghanistan was. It is vital that we do not follow the media in sweeping Afghanistan from the front pages, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, have just said.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Avebury emphasised, there was international consensus on taking action in Afghanistan, unlike the position with regard to Iraq. We must do our best in difficult circumstances to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, is right: we must stay the course, when dealing with failed states.
	There has been some progress in Afghanistan. It is to be welcomed that the Taliban has been removed from power. There are greater freedoms for the people there, especially women and girls, and the first steps are being taken towards the establishment of a new constitution. However, all that is—to say the least—patchy, fragile and possibly unsustainable. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, was right to say that the country was at tipping point. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world, and there is precious little security in the south and east, where the Taliban still operate and the drugs trade shows every sign of sky-rocketing.
	With continuing massive insecurity in Iraq, as shown by today's and yesterday's atrocities, the focus of the US and UK Governments is, as others have said, above all on Iraq—not only their focus but their funds and troops are directed to that engagement. At the end of his two-year posting, the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, rather bitterly commented that he had repeatedly asked for an expansion of ISAF:
	"We were told there were no troops. But then they found 150,000 troops for Iraq".
	Now the US talks of trying to involve NATO in Iraq. NATO is already over stretched in its activities in Afghanistan on its first such venture outside Europe. What are the noble Baroness's thoughts on the US point of view?
	I note that last week NATO defence ministers agreed to expand their forces in Afghanistan. However, they did not say which countries had offered to send more troops. Nearly 6,000 NATO troops are stationed in Kabul. The outgoing deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Major-General Andrew Leslie, said that ISAF should expand its force to up to 12,000 troops in order to maintain security, and that NATO troops could be in the country for up to 10 years. Clearly, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, agrees that it will be, as he puts it, a long haul. Does the noble Baroness also agree? I note that NATO has given no timetable for additional deployments. Could the Minister tell the House what is proposed, by whom and when?
	There is also the problem of insufficient funds. Time and again, President Karzai has pleaded for more funds. The US and the UK promised that they would not turn their backs on Afghanistan; in particular, the Prime Minister emphasised that, as has happened so often in the past. As we have heard from other noble Lords, in Tokyo in January 2002, and subsequently, international donors promised some 5 billion dollars towards the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Could the noble Baroness update us on how much has been delivered, as President Karzai has complained that it has been slow in coming? In March, there will be another donor conference to try to move things forward. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us what the UK Government seek to put on that agenda.
	The Minister was kind enough to give me a Written Answer to my Question last year about the differential between UK spending on military operations and reconstruction. She told me that in 2002–03 the UK spent £310 million supporting military operations in Afghanistan. It spent only £75 million on reconstruction. It is troubling to note that the allocation for reconstruction in 2003–04 is £55 million, even though the situation has hardly improved. I wonder why. There is an imbalance between military spending and reconstruction, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, argued, surely security and development must go hand in hand if Afghanistan is to be secure and to prosper.
	I now turn to one of the most pernicious activities currently taking root in the country; namely, the cultivation of opium, which others have also addressed. The removal of the Taliban had the effect of allowing opium production to seize hold of the country. The UN report in the autumn of last year pointed out that production was up 6 per cent; but, even more significantly, many more areas now have opium production. Poppies are being cultivated in 28 of Afghanistan's 32 provinces, double the number from the 1990s. I have here a map, which my noble friend Lord Avebury gave me. I very much wish that it could be reproduced in Hansard because it makes a very telling point about the extension of poppy production.
	The UN's annual report on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan warns that,
	"Afghanistan risks becoming a state controlled by narco-terrorists".
	Here, we must bear in mind our own interest; that 90 per cent of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan. Where does the Minister now stand on the Chancellor's commitment in 2002 to reduce opium production in Afghanistan by 70 per cent in five years? She may remember that last year I pointed out that the Government felt that they could claim, in a press release from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that the UK was,
	"on track to meet its target of eliminating heroin from Afghanistan on UK streets over ten years"—[Official Report, 4/11/03; col. 687.]
	Does she still feel as optimistic?
	Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN office on drugs and crime, has asked that foreign troops target traffickers if the war on drugs is to be won. US and NATO-led forces so far have resisted calls to tackle drug traffickers, saying that their first responsibility is to maintain security. Last Monday, NATO's Secretary-General argued that counter-narcotics operations were not the prime responsibility of international peacekeepers. But on Tuesday, Mr Costa repeated his warning that Afghanistan was at risk of becoming a "narco-state" because corruption was aggravating the drugs problem. He said:
	"The more we tolerate [corruption], the more dangerous the situation becomes".
	Does the Minister feel that the distinction between maintaining security and dealing with the opium problem and trafficking can be sustained under the circumstances?
	I briefly turn to a few more matters. On 29 January in Westminster Hall during a debate on Afghanistan, to which reference has previously been made, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Gareth Thomas, said that 4 million children are back at school, 37 per cent of whom are girls. Obviously, that is very welcome. Does the noble Baroness believe that this level can be sustained and increased? We hear reports of a backlash against girls in school, as well as school buildings being used for purposes other than education. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Chalker, made clear, it would be terrible to see things slipping backwards again. Could the Minister say something about the participation of women in the political process? Could the moves on that front be sustained? Could she also say something about the rehabilitation back into the community of the 8,000 or so child soldiers that UNICEF has identified?
	Given that Afghan clerics have called for a holy war on those who attack Muslim lands, could the Minister comment on the safety of UK aid workers? As we have heard, the period since August last year has been the bloodiest since the Taliban's fall. The killing of a UN aid worker in November led to the UN pulling out its international staff from rural areas in the south and east. Are there any signs that they might be re-instated?
	As other noble Lords have pointed out, on 4 February the Tearfund announced that it had decided to pull out as well, noting that in the previous nine months 13 aid workers had been killed in southern and eastern Afghanistan, and that increased and sustained support was needed to ensure areas were safer so that people could rebuild their lives. That is a very sad development and shows the importance of increasing security.
	As in the case of Iraq, security must be established in Afghanistan if its political and economic reconstruction can effectively move forward. Given how insecure most of the country is, and its importance to the region and to the world, let alone to its citizens, it is clearly vital that the UK and the US do not forget their responsibilities in Afghanistan as they battle with the problems that are now so evident in Iraq.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the quality of the debate has been excellent. I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing it. I also congratulate the Minister on her stamina in answering for the Government in these two debates, as well as the earlier Statement.
	We on these Benches understand the scale of the challenge that remains in Afghanistan. The country is huge. The terrain is some of the most inhospitable in the world. There is virtually no tradition of political stability. Members of the Opposition endorse what the Government are trying to do, but we will press for more action in some areas.
	The events of September 11 brought dramatic changes to the political landscape in Afghanistan. In 2001, despite already being overstretched, our Armed Forces made a highly professional contribution to the operations there. The military situation remains fluid and volatile. Once again, British troops are in harm's way and continue to perform their duties magnificently.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, drew the attention of the House to the death two weeks ago of another British serviceman, a young TA soldier. At this time our thoughts are with his family, with those who were wounded, and with their families. How unfortunate that a British soldier died only 24 hours after a Canadian soldier also fell victim to a suicide bomber. Unfortunate, too, that both men died in soft-skinned vehicles, in the case of the British vehicle with even less protection than that given to troops serving in Northern Ireland. The British contribution to ISAF is small, but that is no reason why our troops should not be properly equipped. Can the Minister confirm that vehicle patrols in Kabul are now sent out only in Saxon armoured vehicles?
	My noble friend Lady Chalker mentioned the excellent work being carried out by the 85 British troops in the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-i-Sharif. Several noble Lords were concerned that NATO cannot do an effective security job in Afghanistan unless it is given more troops. One agency to which I spoke believes that between 5,000 and 10,000 extra troops will be required. If NATO does make a specific request for additional troops, will Her Majesty's Government be minded to provide a further contribution?
	Despite the significant advances that have been made in Afghanistan, huge challenges remain. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the most urgent is security, in particular in the south and east where Taliban insurgents continue to encroach. Restoring adequate security throughout the country is essential to facilitate the implementation of reforms and projects, as well as the resumption of private economic activity.
	Because of threats to the safety of their staff, some NGOs are finding it difficult to operate and are starting to run down their operations. I pay tribute to the contribution of those bodies that continue to function despite the difficult circumstances. I am particularly impressed with the work of the Afghan Mother and Child Rescue charity, of which my noble friend Lady Rawlings is patron.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the Afghan recovery is being severely hampered by a lack of international commitment to reconstruction. The UN and the World Bank have estimated the cost at between 13 and 19 billion dollars. Donors, however, remain reluctant to commit to such large figures. Several noble Lords were concerned at the continued emphasis on Iraq by the international community, which is a major problem. My noble friend Lady Chalker pointed out that Afghanistan is now a "forgotten place", but the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, rightly said that Afghanistan is a much more serious problem.
	Afghanistan's provinces are ruled pretty much as independent countries by former warlords who, while rejoicing in the official title of provincial governors, still keep their robber baron habits. They have no intention of handing over their regional revenues to Mr Karzai's budget, so he depends on aid handouts from abroad. Hence the Karzai government does need to know definitively what they can expect in terms of pledges and commitments.
	After two decades of war, Afghanistan has few schools and hospitals, and even fewer roads. Even basic provisions such as water and electricity are in short supply. Only three out of 32 provinces are connected to the capital by phone.
	The Taliban have regained control of at least five districts along the border with Pakistan and Iran. Over the past two months, at least 280 people have been killed and hundreds more wounded in clashes between rival factions, battles between the Taliban and coalition forces, or in attacks on government and international aid agency workers. It is also believed that Taliban groups are re-forming in Pakistan.
	Lieutenant-General David Barno, the American commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, says that he expects to bring Osama bin Laden to justice by the end of this year. Do the Government share the general's optimism?
	The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, rightly mentioned the predicament of women and girls in post-conflict Afghanistan. It still remains an important source country for human trafficking in the form of the exploitation of prostitutes, forced labour, slavery and the removal of body organs. Most noble Lords mentioned the campaign against narcotics. Britain agreed to take the lead, but as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, illegal poppy cultivation is increasing.
	My noble friend Lord Elton pointed out that if we are to tackle the drugs trade in Afghanistan it is vital that we help the Afghans to make a living legally and work with them to develop new sources of income and new livelihoods, difficult as it is. My noble friend Lord Lyell pointed out that 90 per cent of the heroin that reaches the streets of Britain comes from Afghanistan. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said that the Government have committed themselves to eradicating opium production within 10 years, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress is being made.
	Continuing arguments about the size and condition of the Afghan army have delayed the disbursement of funds allocated for the soldiers. Many have not been paid. The size of the army, and its effectiveness, is still way short of the level where Mr Karzai can use it to bring the warlords into line. I am told that 3,000 men have already deserted the new army and defected to their warlord employers. We cannot have an international programme costing vast sums of money that trains people who then go back and serve the warlords.
	The problem of mine clearance is immense. It will require many years of continued effort and the courageous and dedicated work undertaken by a few agencies.
	It is excellent news that the transitional government signed a new constitution paving the way for elections to be held later this year. But planning for the elections is not on course and registration has hardly started. The minimum number of police to ensure the safe conduct of the elections, not to mention the security of monitors, will not be trained in time. Large areas of the country remain too dangerous for registration or other preparations to be made. Further areas are snow-bound and inaccessible. In the light of this, is the Minister confident that it will be possible for free elections to take place?
	My noble friend Lady Chalker pointed out that there is some good news coming out of Afghanistan. One important sign of progress is that the Standard Chartered Bank has opened an office in Kabul. According to Ahmed Rashid, writing on BBC Online, despite the cash shortages, Afghanistan is slowly on the road to stability. He points out that the,
	"two essential processes of building a nation through political and economic reconstruction while building up the institutions of state and government are beginning to take place".
	The Afghan Government deserve considerable credit for the way in which they have taken the lead in the development process, last year holding the first Afghanistan development forum in Kabul.
	With the help of the UNHCR, more than 2.5 million Afghan refugees have returned, beginning the process of rebuilding their lives and communities after years of conflict. Thanks to the end of the drought and work by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, grain production increased by 80 per cent in 2002. A record harvest is expected for last year, dramatically reducing the need for humanitarian aid.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate today. I thank him also for the assiduous way in which he has pursued this issue through oral and written parliamentary Questions over the past six months or so. I thank, too, all noble Lords who have shown such a very active interest in the continuing efforts of NATO and the United Nations to improve security in Afghanistan. Helping the people of Afghanistan to rebuild their country is important, not only for Afghanistan itself but, as many noble Lords have pointed out, for the contribution it makes to defeating international terrorism.
	In introducing the debate, the noble Earl asked your Lordships to consider the efforts made by NATO and the UN to help the Afghan people to defeat terrorism and improve security. Sadly, there are many countries around the world where people are struggling to defeat terrorism and to improve their own security. One of the first duties of any government is to provide for the security of their people. Without security there is vulnerability to attack from external forces and vulnerability to terrorism; there is bloodshed and criminality; democratic institutions become compromised, justice imperilled and law and order breaks down; health services do not function, children do not go to school and, at all levels, most normal life as we know it—work, leisure and family life—becomes all but impossible.
	One of the most appalling problems that faced Afghanistan in the period up to October 2001 was that the entire country was characterised as a haven that harboured, sustained and supported terrorists. In these circumstances, the noble Earl is asking the House to consider how multilateral institutions—in particular NATO and the UN—have helped the people of Afghanistan to rid themselves of the scourge of terrorism and to provide the security that is the bedrock of peace and prosperity.
	That point was picked up very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. She rightly said that security without development is stagnation. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, re-emphasised that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was also right to say that there is some good news, a commodity which the noble Earl feels is in very short supply at the moment.
	Foremost, the 2 million returning Afghans are, to some extent, testimony to their own belief and their desire to engage positively in their country's future. I agree strongly with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the international community should remain committed. I shall do my best to persuade the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that, although much remains to be done, there is a good degree of evidence about that international commitment.
	The threat of terrorism that we face crosses national and geographical boundaries. In doing so it demands a multilateral response. Both NATO and the United Nations are powerful vehicles for providing this. They are far from being perfect but both institutions are learning—as, indeed, are we as a government—how to respond to these awful multinational threats.
	NATO has supported efforts to defeat terrorism and improve security in Afghanistan from the outset. On the day after the terrible events of 11 September 2001, NATO invoked Article 5 of its constitution, confirming that the terrorist attacks on the United States constituted an attack on the whole alliance. That was a very important starting point. Then the United Nations also reacted very speedily, confirming through UNSCR 1368 that action to prevent further terrorist attacks was permissible under Chapter 51 of the UN charter. Both NATO and the UN immediately affirmed the legitimacy of coalition military action in Afghanistan when it began on 7 October. So both multilateral organisations were responsive and speedy in their reactions.
	As the coalition response got under way the United Nations monitored the situation closely and impartially. A matter of weeks after the Taliban fled from Kabul the UN hosted a conference in Bonn at which a broad spectrum of Afghans came together to discuss how to reconstruct their country. With significant international support this conference produced the Bonn agreement, a template for the political regeneration of Afghanistan.
	But it was absolutely clear that military peacekeeping on the ground would be vital and, following the Bonn agreement, the UN Security Council authorised the creation of a security force for Kabul. The resulting International Security and Assistance Force—ISAF—was not a UN or a NATO peacekeeping force but a coalition of the willing, albeit with NATO member states contributing the vast majority of troops. It was of course important to have legitimacy from the UN, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, stressed.
	The UK provided the first headquarters and the first commander for ISAF, followed by Turkey and then a joint German and Dutch HQ. NATO played a crucial role by agreeing to provide practical assistance consisting of a headquarters, strategic control and political direction.
	By early 2003 it was obvious that only a limited number of countries had the military structures necessary to fill the role of lead nation, and so NATO began providing enhanced support in April 2003 and took over the leadership of ISAF the following August. NATO's ongoing commitment to leading ISAF has ensured a degree of continuity and stability that was not possible when a new lead nation had to be found every six months. But, of course, non-NATO countries, including Albania, Azerbaijan, the three Baltic states and New Zealand, continue to make very important and valuable contributions to ISAF.
	The continuing engagement of the United Nations has also been vital. The UN has played its part by passing successive Security Council resolutions extending the six-month mandate originally provided by UNSCR 1380. In response to a request from President Karzai and the Afghan Government, the UN Security Council expanded the ISAF mandate in October 2003, authorising ISAF to operate beyond Kabul both in the form of provincial reconstruction teams and on limited temporary deployments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the position of ISAF and its composition. ISAF consists now of some 5,500 troops from 32 nations under NATO leadership. The number of contributing nations and the size of their contributions is constantly changing. I shall not go into the full list now but I shall write to the noble Lord with that list because it is impressive. Each country decides the size of its own contribution within the framework of ISAF's requirements. The German-led PRT in Kunduz came under ISAF command on 30 December. It was the first to do so.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the possible expansion of NATO's deployment into the ISAF mission. It is indeed right that NATO is considering the feasibility of expanding the ISAF mission. It has so far concentrated on the German PRT I mentioned earlier. Plans for temporary deployments and further expansion will depend on nations providing the troops and the capabilities. Contributors will obviously need to plan carefully before making any further commitments. Proposals for further ISAF expansion have not been finalised and there is not a specific timetable for the expansion of the PRTs. However, in answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we expect NATO to take over some—possibly up to five—of the PRTs before the Istanbul summit in June.
	I should stress, particularly to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, that planning does not include blanket coverage over the whole of Afghanistan with NATO forces. Coalition forces continue to carry out missions under Operation Enduring Freedom throughout the country and to engage Taliban and Al'Qaeda forces.
	As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, with regard to the vehicles used by British soldiers in the current deployment, I hope he will appreciate that we take the security of our forces very seriously indeed. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks about their courage and tenacity in pursuing their mandate. However, I hope he will understand if I do not go into detail about the specific policies and arrangements for their security at the moment because that might jeopardise their safety. I can assure the noble Lord that, following the recent suicide bomb attacks, extra armoured vehicles have been delivered to the British troops serving in Kabul.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, expressed concerns about the PRTs. It is important to remember that PRTs are not security forces. Their aim is to facilitate reconstruction by helping to improve the security environment. They were originally established under Operating Enduring Freedom but their focus is on stabilisation and reconstruction. That means that they sit fairly well under ISAF, with its emphasis on security, rather than with the war-fighting role of the OEF.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what was being done to encourage greater activity with the PRTs. Representatives from the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and DfID have presented what they called a PRT roadshow in Oslo, Helsinki, Berlin, Rome and NATO headquarters in Brussels as a means of informing other nations about how PRTs work and how other nations might contribute. The team has also briefed officials from Poland, Turkey and New Zealand in London, and that briefing exercise is currently being undertaken in Ottawa.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, asked what more could we do in relation to PRTs. The UK has led a PRT in Mazar-i-Sharif since July, which a number of your Lordships mentioned. The team is under the military leadership and it is run under the OEF. The UK PRT may transfer to the ISAF command as the NATO planning develops. It consists of about 100 mainly military personnel but includes representatives from the FCO and DfID, along with representatives from the Afghan Government and coalition partners. The make-up of the PRTs changes, given the particular role a particular PRT is undertaking. My right honourable friend Geoff Hoon announced on 7 February that the United Kingdom is prepared to command a group of PRTs in northern Afghanistan. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some more information.
	The noble Baroness was also very concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about security for the election process. Security will be essential in ensuring that all sections of society can participate in the elections which are due later this year and that they are able to do so without fear of intimidation. It will obviously be a matter for President Karzai to judge if the June elections are achievable. The Afghan Government and the UN are currently finalising an election plan, and we expect an announcement to follow soon, once the plan has been agreed by President Karzai.
	The UK and our international partners are doing what we can to support the preparations. We have given £3 million to support the registration process, which concerned the noble Lord, as part of the overall EU contribution which is currently running at some 20 million dollars.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were all concerned about what is happening over narcotics. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has been extremely tenacious on the question. This is not an ISAF question because ISAF has not been asked to contribute directly to the counter-narcotics work. But one of the effects of the stability we are trying to achieve in Kabul should be, we hope, the creation of a more lawful environment in which it is less easy for the drug criminals to operate. Tackling illicit drugs problems is an area where the UN, however, plays a very active role. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime is working closely with the Afghan Government to help implement the Afghan drug security strategy, together with the United Kingdom, and to co-ordinate with other international bodies in that respect.
	The United Kingdom is investing £70 million on sustainable measures over the next three years to support the implementation of the Afghan national drug control strategy, which we helped the Afghans to develop. So I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who also raised important questions on this issue, are, to some extent, heartened by that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also wanted to know the outcome of the recent conference on this important topic. More than 200 Afghan and international delegates attended; it was the first time such a high-level group of Afghan officials, including Ministers, governors and police chiefs had come together to discuss the drugs issue, so it was a very important conference. Action plans were agreed by delegates in the key areas of increasing law enforcement, reducing demand and persuading farmers who grow the opium poppies to take up alternative livelihoods, an important point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, wanted to pursue the question of alternative livelihoods. DfID is funding research into the alternative livelihoods to identify sustainable alternatives to poppy growth in Afghanistan. It is working with the Aga Khan Development Network programme in Badakhshan to continue and to expand support for sustainable economic and social incentives to enable farmers to improve their livelihoods and actively reduce and ultimately eliminate poppy cultivation. I can write further to your Lordships on that important point which I know concerned most noble Lords who contributed to the debate.
	Other questions were raised about economic development. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said that the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were very much concentrated on this point. The World Bank and the Afghan Government are undertaking a revised assessment of what financial assistance Afghanistan currently needs. We expect this to show that the Afghan economy has indeed increased as has the capacity to absorb aid. That is a very positive sign, which normally appears two to three years after the end of conflict in any country.
	We will also be participating in the next conference, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, which is due to take place on 30 and 31 March this year in Berlin. On the question of how the economy might be expanded and what aid is needed, the exact agenda is still to be discussed. However, donors will be invited to evaluate their pledges and to reaffirm their commitments to Afghanistan. We expect this to show that Afghanistan's capacity has been substantially increased, and I hope that will give the opportunity for donor countries to think about some new ways in which they might deploy the resources available.
	My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, were very concerned about the position of women in Afghanistan, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. In March 2003, Afghanistan publicly demonstrated its intention to restore full and equal rights for women by ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That was a welcome move. In the same month, the EU sponsored a resolution welcoming the progress that Afghanistan had made to improve the situation of women and urging the Afghan Government to ensure that a legal framework protecting women's rights was put into place. The number of children attending school has risen; 37 per cent of those students are girls, and a third of teachers are women. The Commission on Human Rights' special rapporteur on violence against women submitted her report on women and girls in Afghanistan last October.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will, I hope, be pleased to know that currently 23 per cent of the delegates to the constitutional Loya Jirgah, which agreed the constitution, were women from right the way across Afghanistan, and that Articles 22, 43 and 44 of the new constitution enshrine women's rights. However, I agree with the noble Baroness—I think it is terribly important that these issues are sustained. We know what pressures there are about women's rights—we should not be in any sense complacent about what is happening. When it comes to the way in which education is moving and women are getting a foothold in the democratic institutions, we should work very hard at sustaining those into the future.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke about some of Afghanistan's neighbours' attitudes. I agree with them that the India/Pakistan agreement is enormously important. We want their engagement to recognise that the potential for destabilising impact, if there were to be any renewed conflict in Afghanistan, would be very serious. However, I think that is an example of useful dialogue—a good example of what can be done when neighbours take steps to try and reduce insurgency and extremist action across borders. The six-neighbour non-intervention pact which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, is also an important point.
	Much is being done to disarm the private militias. President Karzai announced the start of the first demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration pilot scheme in Kunduz in October. Further schemes have since been introduced in Kabul, Parwan and Mazar-i-Sharif. Again, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, was very keen to know more about what is happening there.
	The UN-led DDR process will involve channelling former combatants into civilian life. The UK has contributed more than £2.5 million to the UN as part of the DDR process. ISAF also plays a role in supporting the efforts which have been led jointly by the UN and Japan, importantly, to demobilise, disarm and reintegrate these individuals.
	I could also report to your Lordships successes in health. The UK provides 19 per cent of the European Union's package of aid. Of that, £17.5 million is going on health, rebuilding 72 hospitals, clinics and women's healthcare centres. Of course, we recognise and very much regret that a great deal of pressure has been put on the NGOs, as the right reverend Prelate reported to your Lordships, and that some have been forced to limit or to curtail their activities due to a lack of security, especially in the south.
	I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about the deplorable murder of the young Frenchwoman working for the UN. That was an horrific deed, which underlines the threat that the United Nations faces in Afghanistan. However, the United Nations is not allowing itself to be bullied out of Afghanistan. It continues to work towards disarming militias and registering voters to ensure that the national elections are as successful as possible.
	In short, NATO and the UN have been central to the international effort to defeat terrorism and improve security in Afghanistan. From the moment of the initial declaration through to the work currently undertaken, the roles of NATO and the UN are quite different, but are increasingly converging. As the UN makes progress with DDR and planning for the elections, NATO is working towards improving security and building Afghan confidence that these processes are meaningful steps towards Afghanistan's rehabilitation. It is often said that without security, all other efforts to reconstruct Afghanistan will fail. The support provided by NATO and the UN to improving security is therefore a key element in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
	I thank the noble Earl once again for bringing these matters to our attention so forcefully in such an excellent opening speech. I thank all noble Lords for the contributions this evening.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we have galloped through the debate and I have a minute or two to respond to some of the points made. I am sure that we are all more than grateful to the Minister and admire the skill with which she manages to answer individual speakers so well. However, there were some disappointments in what she said. I note that the feasibility of expanding ISAFs is still under consideration and that there is no specific timetable for NATO. Some of us who spoke about that will be very disappointed.
	Other points were made about the PRTs which, in the time available, the Minister could not deal with in full. However, the discrepancies between the different PRTs must be taken more seriously. My noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce was perhaps most powerful in talking about a unified command structure in Afghanistan. It is absurd that we have so many nations participating, but still no unified structure. I recognise that it is an experiment, as others have said, but it is one of our very serious Foreign Office and defence problems.
	I would like to thank individuals who have contributed. The analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about the origins of the Taliban and the Mujaheddin is absolutely correct. The word Taliban did not exist previously; it was created by the United States to refer to resistance to the Soviet Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and my noble friend Lord Hannay, both made strong development points.
	The right reverend Prelate was enticed away from the General Synod debate, which was probably much more interesting.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that it is much nicer to be here.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate gave us the first signs of hope. He mentioned the new constitution, to which we should say, "So far, so good".
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made a passionate speech in favour of an all-party approach to this problem, which needs addressing. He was the first to say that we are attempting something quite new and that failure would be catastrophic. I also point out to him that olive trees regenerate very quickly, even if they have been destroyed by the Taliban. Many thanks to other noble Lords whom I cannot mention individually.
	Finally, I pay tribute to the Ministers in Afghanistan who are wrestling so hard on meagre resources. I would like to single out Anif Atmar, the Minister for rural reconstruction with whom the non-governmental organisations have developed a very good relationship. We should wish good luck to UNAMA, whose work under Reg Austin—the most experienced electoral officer in the UN—must be supported right up until the elections take place, which includes providing resources as well. We hope that the Minister has been fortified enough by this debate to face her Euro-critics in the forthcoming debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Union Membership

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: rose to call attention to the case for a cost-benefit analysis of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union; and to move for Papers.
	I am truly grateful to all noble Lords who are to speak today. The genesis of this debate goes back to the Second Reading of my European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill on 27 June last year. That Bill called upon the Government to set up an independent inquiry into what life might really be like for the United Kingdom if we were to leave the European Union and continue our trading relationships with our good friends across the channel.
	During the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, floated the idea that, should the Government refuse to conduct such an inquiry—which they did—your Lordships should set up a Select Committee to do so. In that suggestion the noble Lord was later supported by 50 other Peers, who wrote in November to the Liaison Committee asking that such a Select Committee be appointed. Predictably, your Lordships' Liaison Committee turned the request down, using the intriguing excuse that such an inquiry would not be timely while the inter-governmental conference in Brussels was considering the proposed new EU constitution. The decision was upheld on 14 January this year in a vote, by 189 votes to 58, after an unsatisfactory debate when several noble Lords were unable to speak because of time constraints. I can only assume that so many noble Lords voted against a proposed inquiry because they were impressed by the fact that the Liaison Committee had agreed to set up a Select Committee to look into euthanasia, and our guidelines say that we should not have two ad hoc Select Committees at the same time. Either that, or one must begin to doubt the usefulness of your Lordships' House as the guardian of the British constitution.
	Be that as it may, students of our relationship with the European Union should read our debate today in conjunction with debates on 14 January this year and 27 June last year. Anyone who does that will see that there is one constant and very disturbing thread running through those debates, and, indeed, other similar debates for at least the past six years. That thread is that the Government refuse to engage in genuine debate about our relationship with the European Union. They merely assert that our membership of the EU is so obviously beneficial that there is no point in even discussing what life might be like outside it. However, the Government produce no facts to support that contention. They rely instead on the shallowest of propaganda, none of which withstands rational scrutiny. I have no doubt that we shall hear more of this today, so perhaps I may go to meet some of it now and expose some of the presumed benefits of our EU membership for the fallacies that they undoubtedly are.
	Apart from the claim that the EU promotes peace, to which I shall return, perhaps the worst piece of pro-EU propaganda is that 60 per cent of our trade and 3.5 million jobs depend on our membership of the EU. The purpose of this propaganda is clearly to make the British people fear that it would be economic madness to leave the EU. I mentioned that deceit in our debate on 27 June and I regret to say that the Minister, who we are honoured and fortunate to have with us again today—especially on such a burdensome day for her—claimed (Hansard, col. 583) that the Government actually believed it. I will try to pin her down today with some very simple questions.
	First, what evidence do the Government have that any trade or jobs would be lost if we left the European Union and maintained our trading relationships with the single market? Do the Government disagree with the analyses carried out by the US International Trade Commission in Washington, and by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and the Institute of Economic Affairs over here to the effect that leaving the EU would at worst be trade-neutral? If the Government do disagree with these and other analyses, can they tell us why?
	Secondly, given that we trade in deficit with the EU, can the Government produce any evidence as to why we should not continue to enjoy free trade with the single market—as do Switzerland and even Mexico—if we left the European Union itself?
	Thirdly, what evidence do the Government have for another piece of Europhile propaganda regrettably, but I am sure innocently, repeated by the Minister on 27 June? She said:
	"Because Britain is a gateway to the European market, we, here in the United Kingdom, receive the largest share of foreign direct investment in the EU".—[Official Report, 27/7/03; col. 583.]
	When the Minister comes to reply, I ask her to remember that the DTI regularly asks foreign investors why they invest in the UK, and publishes its answers in its White Papers on British competitiveness. Neither UK membership of the EU, nor access to the single market, appears in the 10 most frequently cited reasons for investing in the United Kingdom. Overseas investors say that they like our reliable and flexible workforce, our infrastructure, the absence of corruption, the English language, our business-friendly climate and our low taxes. In parenthesis, one might just wonder for how long foreign investors will see us as offering these advantages, as we become steadily more burdened with the EU's stifling labour and social costs. But the question I have to put to the Minister is, how do the Government justify their gateway theory? Surely it is absolute nonsense.
	I would mention one more supposed benefit of our EU membership, again put forward by the Minister on 27 June at column 584 of the Official Report. She argued that if we were not in the EU we would still have to abide by EU rules if we wanted to trade with it, but we would not be able to influence the making of those rules.
	So my fourth question to the noble Baroness is, so what? I accept that we would, of course, have to meet EU standards for the 9 per cent of our GDP that goes in exports to the European Union, just as we have to meet the requirements of other overseas markets which take 11 per cent of our GDP and just as the USA and others do when they export to the European Union. But would the Government be so good today as to admit—because it is a matter of fact—that Brussels' rules apply not only to the 9 per cent of our economy that trades with the EU, but also to the 11 per cent that trades with the rest of the world and to the 80 per cent that stays right here in our domestic economy? Will she agree that regulations made in Brussels apply to our whole economy, not just to the comparatively small proportion that trades with the European Union?
	I hope that that deals with some of the main claimed economic benefits of our membership of the European Union. There is, of course, one more supposed benefit: that the EU promotes peace. I dealt with that one on 27 June and will not repeat now what I said then. I would, however, point out that many people in Europe seem to be starting to regard the EU's main purpose in life as being a counterbalance to the power of the United States of America, even to undermine her, our greatest ally. This development appears to be inspired largely by France, with her deep psychotic need to bite the hand that freed her in two world wars. Indeed, only yesterday the French defence minister, Michelle Alliot-Marie, boasted that the proposed EU battlegroups are another step towards a European megastate that will rival the Americans. Like many in your Lordship's House, I fear we go down that route at our peril.
	So much for some of the supposed benefits of our membership of the EU. What about some of the costs?
	The Trade Justice Movement, supported by CAFOD and Oxfam, estimates that UK consumers are paying over £20 a week in higher food prices and taxes to keep the EU's iniquitous common agricultural policy going. Assuming that there are 15 million consumers—or families of four—in the United Kingdom, that makes a staggering £15.6 billion per annum. The higher food prices largely fall as 5p on every pint of milk, 40p on every 60p bag of sugar and 3p on every loaf of bread. It would appear that they hit the poorest in our society hardest.
	The Institute of Directors has estimated that EU over-regulation is costing our business some £9.6 billion per annum. The Government themselves estimate that £2 billion a year is going on the Working Time Directive alone. Over the past 10 years our average gross cash contribution to the corrupt octopus in Brussels has been running at £11 billion annually, of which they have been good enough to give back £7 billion on projects designed to enhance their wretched image, making our net cash payment £4 billion per annum.
	The common fisheries policy has destroyed our fishing industry, which would otherwise be worth a conservative £1 billion a year to our economy. I could go on.
	There is also, for instance, the damage done to our modern art market and to dozens of other British interests. There is the incredible waste of time of our bureaucrats and politicians traipsing backwards and forwards to Brussels. The list is a long one.
	Just the net figures I have mentioned add up to £30.2 billion a year. However, I am happy to settle for a conservative £25 billion as the wasted cost of our EU membership annually—or £68 million a day. That is the same as our entire defence budget. It is six times our railways budget, double our transport budget and half our education budget. One billion pounds trips very easily off the tongues of those of us who frequent Westminster, but to real people it is an awful lot of money. One thousand million pounds builds, equips and capitalises a decent-sized district hospital to run indefinitely.
	So our membership of the EU is costing us the equivalent of 25 district hospitals every year—not a very good deal, one might think. The picture is just as crazy if one looks at some of the capital projects which our love affair with Brussels has cost us. There is the cool £18 billion so far on the useless Eurofighter. There is at least £48 billion on the unnecessary water directives. There was £8 billion on the foot and mouth saga. There is £6 billion for "Reach", the new chemicals directive, and another £6 billion for the waste electrical and electrical equipment directive. That adds up to a cosy £86 billion.
	I am not saying that we would not have spent some money on some similar projects if we had not been forced into this huge expenditure by Brussels. So let us be generous and halve it. That still leaves us short of 43 new district hospitals on the capital account.
	I imagine that that is enough about some of the economic costs of our EU membership. But the strongest case for a cost-benefit analysis comes from the damage already done to our democracy and what lies in store for what is left of it. By "democracy" I mean the right of the British people to elect and dismiss those who make their laws. The British people are not aware how much of their democracy—their sovereignty—has already been passed to Brussels. No one has told them how their new subservience works. They do not know that the corrupt EU bureaucracy, the Commission, has the monopoly of proposing new laws. They have not got the point that once the Government or executive have agreed or been outvoted on a new law in Brussels, the House of Commons and your Lordships' House must rubberstamp it on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg so-called court. They are ignorant of the fact that this system, this abrogation of their democracy, already applies to our commerce and industry, to our social and labour policy, to our environment, fish and agriculture, and also to our foreign trade relations. Nor do they know that if we stay in the EU the ratchet can only grind towards ever greater integration and servitude.
	They are perhaps rather more aware of the proposed EU constitution, which the Government are of course right to describe as a "tidying-up exercise". It will simply sweep most of the rest of our democracy under the Brussels carpet. A referendum on the eventual constitution might at last reveal the whole existing can of worms to the public, which one suspects is the real reason why the Government do not want to hold one. That is certainly the reason why the Government do not want to carry out an impartial cost-benefit analysis of our present membership. They are determined to continue to hide from the people the truth about the deceit that has been practised on them by their political classes for more than 30 years.
	Anyone who doubts that such deceit has indeed been deliberately practised should read a brilliant new book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, The Great Deception, published by Continuum Books. Read that book, my Lords, and you will understand why the Government resist a cost-benefit analysis of our present membership of the European Union and also a referendum on an eventual constitution.
	I put it to the Minister that the British people deserve better than this arrogant treatment. They are not so stupid. In constant opinion polls over many years, about 50 per cent of them already say that they would vote to leave the European Union if given the chance. But 84 per cent of them say that their politicians have not given them enough information to let them decide whether the UK should remain in the EU or not, which confirms what I said earlier. How right they are.
	To conclude, by refusing a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union, the Government are guilty of arrogance, cowardice and deceit towards the British people. If the Government find that accusation somewhat harsh, there is only one way in which they can prove me wrong. They cannot continue to avoid the issue with flannel and transparent propaganda. They must conduct an open and impartial inquiry; they must trust the British people with the result. Only thus can they bring to an end the greatest deception ever practised on our nation. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord's speech. I can find one or two points on which I half agree with him and a great deal on which I disagree with him fundamentally. But I have to say that my main perception of his speech is that there appear to be two Europes: the Europe in which I live and the Europe in which he lives. They are so far apart that I do not see how we can inhabit the same territory.
	About five years ago, I was invited by the British Council to attend a conference in Prague on the subject of European enlargement. That conference was attended by persons from many of the existing EU countries, as well as individuals from most of the 10 countries that are about to join Europe on 1 May. What struck me forcefully was that these people, who were mainly from countries that had been under communism, saw so much purpose in their countries joining the EU. It was felt that their main mission in life, as countries, was to become part of the EU and to come back to Europe. That enthusiasm and that wish to be part of the EU contrasts very sharply with the views that we have heard just now and which other critics of the EU purvey.
	If so many people want to join the EU, how can it be the awful place that the noble Lord says that it is? That does not make any sense. Many of the arguments, although not all, would apply to the membership of other EU countries as well, yet they do not seem to have the sort of arguments and campaigning stance that the noble Lord has put forward.
	I shall say something that the noble Lord will find even more contentious. Looking back over history, I believe that we shall be judged as a country as having made a big error in not having joined the European Iron and Steel Community way back in 1951. Had we done so, the EU would have been moulded much more in the way we would wish than some of its details are today. In other words, at the time we were the most powerful country in Europe; the Germans would have wanted a structure such as the EU set up because they would have wanted the credibility from becoming part of it; and the French were less forceful than we were. We made a mistake.
	The reason why we were unable to join at the time was because we had not come to terms with the end of empire. We saw ourselves as an imperial power, and our interests stretched way beyond Europe to the far-flung parts of the world. I can understand why at the time it would have been difficult for any British government to say that we should join at the beginning, but it is a decision that has cost us dear with regard to a number of details of the EU.
	The main detail is the common agricultural policy, on which I agree with the noble Lord. I am not happy about it for some of the reasons that he mentioned—because we support agriculture whose products are then sold in competition with the products of developing countries. I agree with the Trade Justice campaign. However, the CAP is already on its way to being changed, and the accession of the 10 countries will make it even more likely that the CAP will be changed further in the interests of this country and our agriculture.
	I do not share the noble Lord's criticism of all things that come from Brussels—and he used some very strong language about it. I agree that some procedures in Brussels could be changed, and we are well on the way to doing that, if the decisions floated at the last IGC come to pass. With regard to joining the euro, I would argue that it is not a matter of whether we do so but when the time is most appropriate.
	However, I do not agree with the noble Lord's condemnation of all the figures that show how much we benefit. The EU will contain 450 million people by May. I cannot easily say, "It doesn't matter, we can get all those benefits even if we are not members". Three million British jobs depend upon it. They may not all be lost if we were to leave the EU, but we might lose some of them. Fifty-five per cent of UK trade is with our EU partners; surely, that is pretty significant. I am not as confident as the noble Lord that there would be no change to our pattern of trade if we left the EU. The EU market is bigger than that of the United States and Japan combined. Our exports to the EU are three times greater than our exports to the United States. If the EU is as bad as the noble Lord says that it is, why have we managed such a big growth in exports to the EU? Why has not our trade to North America increased more?
	The noble Lord said something about peace. I go along with John Hume, who said that the European Union was the longest and most successful peace process in world history. John Hume knows something about peace and peace processes, and I believe that he was right in what he said.
	The EU gives us a chance to co-operate on security, anti-terrorist measures, difficulties with asylum and immigration policy and tackling international crime. We can deal with environmental issues together. The EU gives us in this country better opportunities for travel and for our students. It is very much in the interests of this country to be in the EU. We have more international influence through our membership of the EU than we would have if we were a small isolated country off the northern shores of Europe. Our sense of identity and Britishness has not in any way been weakened by membership of the EU. Other countries do not sense that, and I do not believe that it has any effect on us.
	I welcome the enlargement of Europe. I welcome the fact that 10 countries that have given up communism are keen to join Europe and will do so on 1 May. I wish our industries and British industrialists were keener to invest in those countries; the Germans are doing far more in investment than we are, and we are losing out. There is an enormous opportunity there.
	Finally, I have a vision of Europe in which the former communist countries and the western European countries are part of a greater endeavour. Yes, there are faults and weaknesses and there must be changes. However, I believe that it is a mission for peace and that we share our dedication to human rights, democracy and the freedom of the individual. Those values are important and they are what is driving other countries to join Europe. That is why I hope that we shall have none of the noble Lord's suggestions.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I rise to support the case for a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union put by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. First, I declare an indirect interest. My noble friend's charitable trust has given financial support for many years to my own charitable trust for our educational and humanitarian activities. However, I trust that your Lordships would accept that that would not in any way influence my contribution to this debate or, indeed, to any debate.
	I begin by referring briefly to two issues that I highlighted on 27 June, which are still cause for concern, and which support the case for a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the EU. I spent much of my time in that debate identifying research demonstrating the EU's long-term and irreversible economic decline, partly due to demographic trends. Evidence has shown that the economic and demographic trends in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Far East are forecast to remain beneficial, while those in the EU suffer from a poor prognosis. Should we not undertake an assessment, at least, of whether we would do better to follow our economic fortunes with areas of the world with positive demographic and economic prognoses, rather than pool our future with Europe?
	Tonight, I turn to the implications of those economic and demographic trends for two issues that concern me deeply: Britain's contribution to the economic development of less developed countries and our role in meeting humanitarian needs in crisis areas with maximum effectiveness. The Government's determination to stay in the EU without even contemplating a cost-benefit analysis seems hard to square with those concerns in at least two respects. First, one-third of our international aid budget—or some £600 million a year—is spent by the European Union. I am sure that the Minister is aware of criticisms levelled at the EU in many respects. By way of example I quote concerns from the House of Commons International Development Committee 8th report of October 2003. The first states:
	"EC Development Programmes funding, estimated at £865 million . . . [for] 2003–4, appears as a separate line with no objectives or targets indicated. For such a significant sum it is important for the Department and taxpayers to be clear whether and how this money delivers the government's development objectives".
	The second concern states:
	"With more volatile exchange rates the £sterling equivalent of the Euro amount attributed to the UK can vary significantly year-on-year. Because the total DfID budget is set inclusive of the EU element, this means that adverse exchange rate movements have to be funded out of the remainder of the department's budget. This is essentially 'top-slicing' and reduces the resources the Department can direct to priority areas".
	The third concern states:
	"The Department told us that whilst poverty reduction is now at the centre of EC policy, 'question marks remain as to how widely the policy has been applied' and that only 44% of EC funding has gone to low income countries in 2001. The EU's record in terms of the share of aid reserved for poor countries remains substantially worse than that of individual member states".
	My final example of concern states:
	"The enlargement of the EU may pose a new challenge for achieving DfID's objectives. The accession countries have small aid programmes and also have understandable interests in their own immediate regions. DfID will have to find ways of ensuring that the accession of the 'ten' does not reinforce the tendency for the EU to focus on the 'near abroad' . . . In addition, we would like to see more information in the departmental report about how these funds are used, the framework for distributing EC development funds, current shortcomings and limitations in this, including in measuring aid outcomes and DfID's own efforts in this area".

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but does she think that in a typical African country there should be 15 different EU aid programmes or a country strategy paper for each country, drawn up collectively by the EU, on governance and all the matters, judiciary and so on, that need to be co-ordinated through the EU?

Baroness Cox: My Lords, this is a timed debate and so I shall respond very quickly. I spend much of my time working in Africa. I should like to see British aid of maximum effectiveness being allocated to any African country and a cost-benefit analysis of its effectiveness being carried out.
	The concerns that I mentioned fit directly into the case for a cost-benefit analysis made by my noble friend and amplified by the remarks made on the opposite side of the Chamber. There is obviously a need for assessment of the most effective use of resources given by the UK for aid and development, for accountability to our taxpayers and to the people suffering so acutely in many parts of the world from natural and man-made disasters and/or economic underdevelopment.
	My second anxiety about ways in which our membership of the EU is damaging our ability to help the developing world as effectively as possible relates to the common agricultural policy, to which my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. I understand that we pay about £8 billion a year towards the CAP's £30 billion annual budget. Therefore, not entirely irrelevant are estimates by Oxfam that while each European cow enjoys two US dollars a day in support from the CAP, 1.2 billion people around the world live on just one dollar a day, and millions starve every year.
	Before I conclude, I wish to deal with a different subject. I was disappointed in our debate on 27 June to receive no reply to my concern about the lack of any Christian or spiritual content in the proposed new constitution for Europe. I quote again from a speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in your Lordships' House on 7 January last year:
	"To want to be at the heart of Europe and yet, at the same time, to ignore the soul of Europe would be to make a profound mistake".—[Official Report, 7/1/03; col. 920.]
	That is my view and it is shared by millions of people across Europe. Poland was particularly disappointed not to get some reference to our religious heritage included in the proposed EU constitution. Such an omission may leave a dangerous vacuum that could be filled by ideologies incompatible with the values of liberal democracy which were born and enshrined in Europe's spiritual and cultural heritage.
	I conclude by saying that I hope the Minister will appreciate that these are not in any way party political or parochial concerns but attempts to enable and ensure adequate research to assess the implications of the complex realities involved so that decisions will be made which are based on truthful, honest policies grounded in as much evidence as can be adduced relating to past experience, the current situation and assessment of future trends. The Government owe the people of this nation that reassurance and I trust that the Minister will be able to give us that promise tonight.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I would be risking a charge of hypocrisy if I were to say that I welcomed this debate or that I regarded it as timely or desirable. I voted against the attempt to overturn the Liaison Committee's recommendation not to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the costs and benefits of our EU membership. I voted against it not least, but not only, because it was a fairly transparent device to prepare the ground for our withdrawal from the European Union, as the original title of the Select Committee proposal revealed and as a number of those who participated in the brief debate we had before voting, and a number of those who have already spoken today, have also revealed. What I do welcome, however, is the opportunity today to explain why I opposed such a Select Committee and why I believe that the present debate is neither timely nor particularly useful—a view in which I have been fortified by the customary moderation with which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, introduced the debate.
	The clear implication of the inquiry that was proposed and of the title of our debate today is that our EU membership is a simple matter of readily quantifiable cost-benefit analysis. But it is surely not like that. It is not only the case that many aspects of the fundamental strategic decision we took when Parliament endorsed the terms of our accession in 1971, and when that view was confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the referendum of 1975, are simply not susceptible of accurate quantification, although that consideration should obviously weigh in the balance. There is also the question: how can one quantify the consequences of a decision that has fundamentally influenced every aspect of our economic policy, our business life, our trade policy and many other policy areas in the past 30 years? And how can one quantify the implications of a different set of circumstances, with Britain outside the European Union, when such a calculation requires a series of heroic and unsubstantiable assertions about the conditions under which we would have found ourselves living? One might as well try to quantify the costs and benefits of our membership of NATO, or of the United Nations, or for that matter of the Union of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. I have not noticed any great rush to set up such futile and counter-productive exercises.
	But even those aspects of our EU membership that give a possibly misleading impression of being readily quantifiable—budgetary costs, the trade balance, inward investment and so on—are not in fact susceptible of a clear cut presentation. Back in the 1980s the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whose achievement in building the single market must not be forgotten, commissioned a report on the cost of Europe's innumerable non-tariff trade barriers and of the benefits of removing them. The Cecchini report, as it was called after its author, laboured mightily and used all the econometric tools available. The kindest thing one can say about it, with the benefit of hindsight, is that the sign in front of the figures was correct—it was, indeed, a plus—but the figures were far from correct. That is surely a warning for those who wish to achieve precision and certainty in this field, where none is available.
	The Cecchini report was in any case a relatively simple set of calculations compared with what would be needed if one was to put the whole of Britain's membership under the microscope. It had a firm basis in fact in the shape of the current situation and the barriers that existed and had been catalogued by the Commission. It had a reasonably firm basis for the other end of the bridge because it could posit the removal of these barriers and the sort of EU regulatory apparatus which would, in some but not all cases, be needed to take their place. The case of Britain's membership would be far more complex. What would, for example, be the effect on inward investment if we were not a member of the European Union? What kind of agricultural policy would we operate if the CAP no longer applied in this country? Where would we stand so far as concerns trade policy both vis-a-vis our biggest trading partners, the other European countries, and vis-a-vis the rest of the world? To what extent will we be compelled simply to replicate what the EU did without having any chance to influence it—the situation in which Norway and Switzerland find themselves?
	Even if a reliable, credible and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis was readily available without too much delay and without too many resources being lavished on it, which I argue that it is not, I would still question the desirability of conducting such an exercise. If the United States, for example, were to undertake publicly and officially a cost-benefit analysis of its membership of NATO—or if one of the permanent members of the Security Council were to do the same with the United Nations, or if a nationalist party were to insist on an assessment of the value of the Union—we would be mightily alarmed and would argue that it was a retrograde step that would undermine both the credibility of the organisation in question and the commitment to and influence in it of the country that undertook the assessment. We would be right to do so.
	What then makes us think that we could embark on such an exercise with respect to the European Union in this House and not have a damaging effect on ourselves and our interests? Naturally, our partners in the European Union would be dismayed and would no doubt be made all the more so by the vigorous efforts of those who do want us to withdraw from the European Union, to ensure that the assessment was negative. Until that exercise was concluded, there would be a question mark over our continued membership, and that during a period when we need to be influencing the formulation of EU policies effectively—over the implementation of enlargement, the economic reform agenda, the world trade negotiations, the budget and foreign policy—and not sidelining ourselves in the debates.
	Do those arguments against a cost-benefit analysis weaken the case for our membership? Are they based on a fear that such an analysis would be negative? I would say "No" to both points. There is nothing extraordinary or indefensible about arguing that the long-term strategic decisions of a country or a group of countries can and should not be based purely and simply on a narrow assessment of "nicely calculated, more or less". When the original six European countries came together in 1952, they were not so based—and who would say now, more than 50 years later, that they have not justified their decisions?
	Our own decision in 1971 was quite clearly based on a similar, wider political analysis. I will quote only one statement made at the time, and that not by a politician caught up in the parliamentary debate but by Sir Con O'Neill, who was the senior official in charge of the accession negotiating team. He said:
	"The true purpose of the Community is security as well as prosperity; and gradually, by the consent of its members, to extend the advantages of working together into new spheres. Its objectives, whatever the forms through which they first expressed and still express themselves, are not usually economic".
	And, when the countries of central and eastern Europe, recently freed from the crippling political and economic stranglehold of the Soviet Union, decided to join the European Union, was that a decision based purely on a narrow cost-benefit analysis? Of course it was not. So there is no need to be ashamed, or the slightest bit defensive, about arguing against the wisdom and the usefulness of our now carrying out such an analysis.
	I would like to end on a positive note. I hope that this debate will help to clear the air. All the main political parties are committed by their leaderships to Britain's continuing membership. Let us then turn to the massive agenda which faces Europe in the years ahead and concentrate on ensuring that decisions are taken that are in both Britain's and the European Union's best interests.

Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I fear that I am about to demonstrate that independents are people who cannot be depended on, as I stand at approximately the opposite pole from my noble friend Lord Hannay. Indeed, I start by repeating from the Cross Benches my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for his brave persistence on the issue, which I regard as second only to national defence against terrorism. The powerful study that he quoted, The Great Deception, shrewdly defined the threat to our country from Brussels as a "slow motion coup d'etat". No doubt many noble Lords, including some present, regard the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as a very great bore—and so he is. So was Churchill in the 1930s, in his repeated calls to arms against an enemy.
	For me I am afraid, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has proved a truer guide to significant developments in the European Union than our Select Committee reports, however admirably presented, which have largely concentrated on the minutiae of the latest directions from our would-be masters. After much reflection, however, I have concluded that he would do better to confine his call to an economic cost benefit. Economic costs are more tangible and susceptible to some kind of accurate assessment than any vague benefits.
	After all, why do people support the European Union? Very few do from an economic standpoint. For some, a psychic or emotional satisfaction is a sufficient reason. For others, broad political considerations predominate. For better connected eélites, some of which are represented sometimes in this House, support may turn on notions of loyalty, personal friendship or—perish the thought—personal ambition and self-interest, including safeguarding pensions.
	The problem for the noble Lord's cost-benefit analysis is that what the late Lord Robbins called, in another context altogether,
	"the mystic joys of tribal unity"
	are subjective. However real they may be to Euro-philes, they cannot be measured. The merit of concentrating on the economic costs is that they are tangible and quantifiable. My challenge is that it simply will not do to commend support for the EU "irregardless", as the late Lord George-Brown would have said, of its costs. Can it be such a fine thing that any cost would be justified? Would even the Liberal Democrats dare to commend the EU without showing the least regard for the cost?
	Because we cannot measure everything, as my noble friend Lord Hannay said, should we not try to measure anything? That is an absurd proposition on which I hope noble Lords will reflect. Must this large issue of policy turn entirely on a mixture of emotion, hopes or fears, ignorance or rival propaganda? Nor will it wash to dismiss the patient call for information from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on lofty, pseudo-technical grounds, as I have heard in this House, that cost-benefit methodology has no bearing on such complicated issues. That altogether underrates the sophistication of specialists in that line of business, especially if they are offered a fee.
	It is difficult to suppress the dark thought that opposition to measurement conceals a preference for sweeping claims of disaster if we dare to contemplate withdrawal, and absurdly exaggerated claims about the EU as the guarantee of peace in Europe and the world. For both Euro-sceptics and Euro-philes, economic benefits may not even be the most important part of the equation. However, for all rational beings, the measurable economic burden is relevant as indicating the opportunity costs of our membership—that is, the sacrifice of alternative uses of the resources.
	In an earlier debate, I ventured to offer some broad orders of magnitude of the opportunity costs that might be saved by British withdrawal. The figures were admittedly derivative, but a retired economist can hardly be expected to undergo the fatigue of original research in such a matter. Anyway, I suspect that hordes of experts in the Treasury could produce much of the data for which we are looking from their word processors in their lunch hour.
	My first approximation differs a little from that of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I start from a gross payment to the EU and its institutions shown in the Pink Book at almost £12 billion, from which might be deducted up to £7 billion, including the Thatcher rebate, which of course the French and Germans would like to snatch back. Then there are estimates of the total cost of the CAP, which range from £5 billion to £9 billion. Is it about right to put at £5 billion the higher priced imports that follow from the EU's dubious anti-dumping duties? Such outside "guestimates" would suggest that annual costs might range from £15 million to £25 million—a little short of the estimate made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. They are huge figures to set against the arguable political and psychological advantages of membership.
	Rather than retreat into her usual charming evasions, would the noble Baroness, the Minister, at least acknowledge the desirability of a more accurate assessment than I have been able to offer? The stakes are high. The Minister might even avoid further re-runs of our unending debates.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson for initiating the debate and I congratulate him on his excellent speech. It admirably set the scene.
	For reasons that defeat me, all the Front Benches are to a greater or lesser extent in favour of the EU; some want more, some want less and some want the unattainable. So it is usually left to Back-Benchers to question the whole relationship; to question whether it is a good idea for Britain to be in the EU at all; and to examine the costs. But when we dare to ask those questions we are slapped down as "Euro-phobes"—a convenient catch-all label which means that we are so far beyond the pale that it is not even worth having the debate. An example of that occurred last month in a Liaison Committee debate when one of our opponents—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I think—called it "damaging" to have such a debate on our membership of the European Union and its costs. I do not see how it can be "damaging" to ask for an open debate about the fundamentals of the EU—called the "bottom line" by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
	Our gross annual contribution to the EU budget is £11 billion—I prefer to deal with the gross, rather than the net, figures. The British taxpayer is handing over £30 million every day of the year to an organisation in Brussels and that is a byword for—how shall I put it—financial irregularity. It is an organisation whose accounts have failed to be signed by the European Court of Auditors for nine consecutive years. But the poor old taxpayers are never asked whether they think that is a good idea or told how their money is being spent. I suppose it would be "damaging" to do that. When it comes to the EU, honesty is definitely not the best policy.
	So what happens to that £30 million a day? Where does it all go? As we have heard, most of it goes on the Common Agricultural Policy. Although there is talk of reform, I shall tell the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the bill has not come down and does not look like coming down. We are still paying the same amount, it just goes into a different pocket. That reform will not be particularly promising. The EU has also been lucky enough to be able to contribute towards modernising the Spanish fishing fleet so that it may operate with full efficiency in what used to be our North Sea waters, while the British fishing fleet is laid up. I am sure that we would all like to pause and thank Sir Edward Heath for making such self-evident benefits possible.
	What do we get back? After careful study of replies in House of Lords Hansard, the Government's case appears to rest on two positives: first, our membership of the single market. I do not propose to deal with the claims about jobs as they have already been dealt with and subsequent speakers may also wish to touch on that point. All I shall do is to remind the House that a Government Written Answer on 30 March, 1999 stated:
	"There are no meaningful figures on the effect of European single market legislation upon net UK job creation between 1993 and 1997".[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. WA 32.]
	The second alleged positive is that within the EU we are able to shape the way it develops; to make it, in the Minister's words,
	"more democratic, more effective and of course more efficient".
	If only that were true, but it is patently not. Britain has been hit by a tidal wave of EU directives, regulations and red tape that damage rather than help British competitiveness. An absolute classic of that kind is the Commission's recent ruling that Ryanair's deals with Charleroi airport are illegal. Now, instead of paying say £10 or even less for a flight to Brussels, would-be travellers—those outside the EU and government salariat who do not have to count the cost—will have to pay enormous sums. They will be back in the hands of the grisly gang of "state champions"—Air France, Aer Lingus, and Alitalia—and will probably have to take out a second mortgage to afford a ticket to Brussels. I am afraid that the Commission would not recognise competition if it fell over it.
	EU red tape has now become an avalanche. It flows into every corner of our life, with directives on working time, parental leave—

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he be in favour of allowing local governments to subsidise illegally airlines that wish to come to their airports? Would that be a good use of taxpayers' money? Does he favour a single market in which such practices are common and allowed?

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I favour an open and competitive policy. It was open to other airlines to do the same as Ryanair; they were just too slow to do it. The Commission should recognise competition for what it is, not what it thinks it is.
	I was talking about the various directives that have flowed our way—working time, parental leave, pregnant workers, part-time workers and an uncountable thicket of health and safety regulations. Also our horses must have expensive and unnecessary passports in case they get eaten by our Belgian or French friends; farmers are criminals if they bury a dead ewe on their own land; and any trader is a criminal if he sells goods in pounds rather than kilos.
	But I do not wish to be too negative. When she wound up our debate on this subject in June last year the Minister pointed out that thanks to the EU we in Britain have safer toys. She is quite right. Thanks to the EU rocking horse directive, we now have a new "free height of fall" standard which will ban all rocking horses that are over two feet high. Just as we are deemed too spavined to clean up our own beaches and provide clean drinking water for ourselves, we can now sleep easy in the knowledge that killer rocking horses will longer damage our kiddies. That makes it all worthwhile.
	The politicians and Euro-crats who have charted our progress into the European morass are fond of the image of vehicular progress to instil the necessary urgency in us laggards. We must not miss the boat, train or bus; we must keep pedalling the Euro-bike in case it loses momentum and we all fall off. The Euro-limo is looking more like a Euro-banger day by day. After the findings of massive fraud in Eurostat, the smell over the Commission's own accounts, the ignominious collapse of the stability pact and a collision with Poles on the way to the constitution, the wheels have come off the Euro-limo in a big way. It is now parked hissing and creaking in a lay-by, waiting for the rescue service.
	The rescue service comes in the shape of the President of the European Commission. His solution is a whacking 25 per cent increase in the European budget. In broad-brush terms that would bring Britain's annual contribution up to £13.25 billion. Would the Minister say whether the Government are in favour of such an increase? And if not, could she explain why the Government believe that £13.25 billion is not right, but that £11 billion is. We would like to know. If the Government are so confident of their case, they should be able to make it in the study for which we are asking.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend for initiating this debate and to congratulate him on the vigorous and sincere way that he deployed his arguments. I also congratulate him on his good timing—I shall return to that matter.
	His request for a cost-benefit analysis is reasonable by any standards. I would have thought that europhobes and europhiles alike would be seized of the wisdom of being in possession of as many facts as possible before taking the next and possibly irrevocable step. If nothing else, the Iraq war has taught us that. I have heard it said by noble Lords who are on the europhile side of the argument that there is no point in carrying out the sort of exercise that my noble friend is requesting, because the benefits of remaining within the EU are so obvious. I can only say that I, and increasing members of the British public, find that argument is wearing thin.
	There is another argument that is deployed by the europhiles, which is that a cost-benefit analysis would be so complex—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to that—that it would be difficult to carry out and it would be time consuming and expensive. It may be all of those things, but I do not believe that that absolves us from carrying out the work.
	This is one of the most important and long-lasting decisions that we have to make in our lifetime. And assembling all the facts which would then enable us to do our "due diligence" has to be the right way forward. Indeed, to do anything less would be—to use a City expression—an abrogation of our fiduciary duty.
	I mentioned earlier the good timing of my noble friend Lord Pearson in getting his Motion on to the Order Paper today. As we all know, the EU spending budget is very much in the news at the moment. A 25 per cent increase in contributions is being proposed, with, very possibly, a demand in 2006 that we forfeit our annual rebate of nearly 3 billion euros. To read some comments in the press, one would think that this was a bolt from the blue. But after enlargement it was ever going to be thus. Of course the richer countries were going to have to increase their contributions because the poorer countries joining were always going to be the net beneficiaries. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, that is why so many Europeans think that the EU is a brilliant wheeze. It benefits them, it is right that it should and it is right that we should help them. It goes some way towards answering the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
	Many of us warned that this would happen and so I found it somewhat extraordinary to read yesterday in the Evening Standard that our Chancellor, Gordon Brown, will label the proposals for increased EU spending as,
	"unacceptable and unrealistic, wasteful, inefficient and unfair".
	I found that most interesting and I want to focus on two of his words; wasteful and inefficient. For me, they summarise so much of what is wrong with the EU.
	At present, our net contribution is running at about £4.5 billion per annum. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke says that the gross figure is some £11 billion and my noble friend Lord Pearson came up with £25 billion. By any standards, it is a large contribution. Among other places, it going is down a black hole of fraud, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Willoughby.
	The EU auditors have been unable to sign off the accounts for the past nine years because they cannot account for the whereabouts of what they acknowledge to be about £3 billion to £4 billion. It is of course more than likely to be even greater than that.
	If that is the case, it becomes apparent that our entire net annual contribution of about £4.5 billion is being lost to fraud of one kind or another. One talks nowadays in billions without capturing in a real sense the amount of money we are talking about. Let us say that our contribution is £4.5 billion; that is £4,500 million. It is a great deal of money and all of it is coming from the long-suffering British taxpayers' pocket. To what extent are British taxpayers aware that an amount equivalent to almost all our net contribution is being lost down a black hole of fraud in the European Community? I do not suspect that many are but people should know.
	I may be exaggerating the figures, but I fear that I am not. In any case, the only way to find out is to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the kind my noble friend Lord Pearson is advocating. I live in the hope that the Government may be persuaded that this is the only wise and sensible way forward.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is a debate which should not be needed. But it is and all your Lordships should be grateful—although I am sorry to discover that some are not—to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his tireless efforts to achieve it.
	It is self-evident that any country which is a member of an organisation which involves money should have a cost-benefit analysis both economic and political. I am sure that the Government will say that they have one. Possibly they have, but it is my contention that if they have, it is out of date and extremely tendentious.
	And therefore, it is probably advisable that those of us who support the Motion should make it clear where we come from. In so far as I speak for the Green Party on this matter, I have to say that the party's policy is in favour of Britain being part of the EU but would like to see it reformed. That, I think, is a triumph of hope over experience. No one looking at the EU as it is at the moment can hold out much hope of it reforming itself in the direction we want; that is to say, becoming less bossy and less economics oriented.
	As for myself, I have abandoned hope of reform and I will campaign for our speedy exit. I was not always thus. Soon after our accession, the British office of the EU gave a small dinner party for those of us who had campaigned for it before what were then the "big parties" decided to. My wife and I had helped to organise, under Lord Gladwyn and Mark Bonham-Carter, a small conference in 1963 called "Europe—after Britain joins" and so we were counted among the good, if not the great, and were rewarded accordingly with a nice dinner party.
	But my devotion to Europe, which is as strong now as it was then, was to a Europe des Patries, as De Gaulle would have called it, and was deeply rooted in the concept of Christendom, the basis of which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, pointed out is disappearing down the plug hole. I failed to notice for far too long a time that such ideas were being swamped by economic factors. Far from a reversion to Christendom, we were heading inexorably into the jaws of Mammon.
	I must point out that I have spoken for more than the nought minutes, which is shown on the clock. I welcome what it is doing to me and I promise not to over-run, but I think I should point that out.
	I am an unrepentant reader of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph on the basis that together with the Financial Times they have by far the highest standards of British journalism. Therefore, your Lordships will not be surprised that I could not bombard you with the endless instances of the dictatorial record of Brussels, which Christopher Booker and his colleagues provide. But tonight is not the time for that. That time will be when we set up a body, as envisaged in the Motion, to draw up the balance sheet. I am sure that sooner or later we will.
	In the mean time, I will continue to fight to maintain British independence against a take-over by the Brussels Commission's United Europe, as I saw done when I was a boy against Hitler's United Europe and as our ancestors did against Napoleon's United Europe. Now that the opinion polls tells us that the majority of all members of the EU are opposed to that body—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked us to consider why so many people want to get in but I would ask him to consider why so many people want to get out—I see some hope as long as doughty fighters such as the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart, stick to their guns.
	In 1940, after the fall of France, the Times printed a poem by my beloved Dorothy L Sayers called "The English War". It had the courage to rejoice in those dark days that we stood alone and contained the stanza:
	"This is the war that we have known
	And fought in every hundred years,
	Our sword upon the last, steep path
	Forged by the hammer of our wrath
	On the anvil of our fears".
	So, stirred by that clarion cry, let us at the very least press for a cost-benefit analysis!

Lord Vinson: My Lords, we are, yet again, indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for instigating this topical debate. Ever closer union with Europe is to many people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, indeed, the fulfilment of their vision of a supranational European state bringing—

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I did not argue for a supranational European state. I thank the noble Lord, but that is not what I said.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, I apologise. I am delighted that the noble Lord made that point clear. However, to many people, the fulfilment of their vision is a supranational European state bringing peace in our time. They argue that the nation state is on its way out and will soon be part of yesterday's political framework. They argue that we are on the escalator of commitment and the die is cast. I used to think that way, too, but my vision has been tempered by reality.
	I believe that the nation state is far from dead and that Europe should be built on foundations that acknowledge basic tribal patriotism rather than attempting to eliminate it. One glance at the crowds at international football matches should be enough to alert all politicians to the force of nationalism. Nationalism should be embraced in our arrangements if we wish to give the whole European ideal democratic legitimacy. As the Government ponder on the new EU constitution, now, indeed, is the time to do so.
	Interestingly, only last week Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, said that he had,
	"learnt a lot from the Iraq conflict which split the EU down the middle",
	and that,
	"the dispute raised fundamental questions of how close European neighbours with different histories and traditions could agree on vital policies".
	He went on:
	"I think all countries have the same interest: a strong Europe. But we have different traditions, different political disputes at home, complicated parliamentary systems—we have to balance that and go forward".
	Wise words indeed.
	Meanwhile, as every poll on the popularity of the EU shows, the British public are becoming increasingly doubtful about the whole exercise and sceptical as to its benefits. Even the Government's own representative on the Giscard committee, Gisela Stuart, changed her mind after first-hand experience of the realities of the EU, saying in her recent speech:
	"The fabric of the EU is tottering and it needs amending".
	If the Government sign up to this constitution, forced on our people without reference by a political elite, it will reinforce the growing alienation from the democratic process. I wish I could remember who said:
	"If you value peace over freedom, you will finish with neither",
	but he was dead right. We must have an arrangement with the EU that works with the grain of human nationalism. Another botched deal based on reluctant consent is in no one's interest. What the public need is an assessment of where this country stands, what economic benefits it has reaped from our membership to date and what, if any, alternative arrangements it could have within an enlarged Europe. Change is in the air. We have all read the audit of war; now it is time for an audit of peace.
	I cannot for the life of me understand why the suggestion of a cost-benefit analysis is not encouraged and supported by many on the opposite Benches. It could well vindicate their vision and justify their belief in further economic integration. Alternatively, are they terrified of seeing one of their sacred cows, grazing in the verdant pastures of Europe, suddenly slaughtered by a fact?
	Others in this debate have spelt out areas and parameters that a cost-benefit analysis should examine. Time is short but I hope that, not least, we can look at the true cost of our 1 per cent GNP contribution to the EU and the dubious benefits and lack of utility of much of the grants returned to us—grants which can be spent only on items which our own Government would not have supported in the first place. It is good to see that this week the Treasury is having some thoughts on this financial roundabout and all the waste that goes with it—probably up to 0.25 per cent of our GDP frittered away and well over £2 billion.
	I hope that our analysis could also examine the cost of over-regulation and why we gold-plate our regulations and others do not. A perfect example of our attitude and how damaging it is to our economy is in this week's press. A fully HSE-licensed and approved waste paper furnace was used to heat a building—an excellent example of recycling. Out comes a new EU regulation describing it as an "incinerator" and no longer as a "furnace". So the same HSE department takes steps to close it down, albeit previously recognising its intensely useful function. That results in the destruction of a highly commendable recycling operation. Have we gone mad? Whatever happened to subsidiarity in cases such as that? One could repeat that type of example a thousand-fold.
	The European Union is making the most significant decisions about its future structure since the Treaty of Rome established the Community in 1957. We need the facts because the Government, whatever their red lines, will be under pressure to sign up. As ever, we shall witness diplomacy by exhaustion and the future legal and financial framework of this country will no doubt be changed irreparably. Deeper embedded will be taxation without adequate representation and regulation without the possibility of rectification because the new constitution gives the EU a legal entity in its own right and its laws will take preference over those of national parliaments.
	The constitution of this country has been developed over 1,000 years and has given us, uniquely, remarkable political and economic stability second to none—one which we all too easily take for granted. The British people must know what they are getting in exchange. The EU convention is not just a matter for governments; it is a matter for parliaments and people. The recent vote in Sweden was not only a vote against the euro but a vote against the political establishment that was taking people along a route which was going they did not know where and which, instinctively, they did not like.
	The Government must find the resources to establish the facts and then the British people must be allowed to decide on those facts by way of a referendum. If a new EU constitution is imposed upon them without a real effort to explain its desirability, those football crowds will divert their patriotism into strident nationalism, and the dream of a peaceful Europe—a dream we would all like to see come true—will turn into a nightmare.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on putting this item on the agenda today and also on his persistence in pursuing this particular view. I also congratulate him on his presentation a few Sundays ago on the Jeremy Vine show. That was certainly well received, and I believe that he has had a great deal of encouragement and correspondence about it.
	However, it is beyond my comprehension that, after 32 years' membership of, first, the Common Market and then the European Union, there is a blank refusal by the Government and the main opposition parties to agree to the need for a cost-benefit analysis of our continuing membership. What on earth are they all afraid of? We have had myriad inquiries about virtually everything else; why on earth cannot we have an inquiry about the most important issue to face this country during the rest of this century? We should have such an inquiry and we should have it now.
	Surely we want to know what benefits—economic, social and political—we derive from membership, how far the governance of Britain has been handed over to the European Union and what future lies in store for us as an independent, self-governing democracy. Those are huge and important issues and they affect the future of this country. Why on earth cannot we have an inquiry into the matter? If this item is not worthy of an inquiry, what on earth is? Perhaps we should have an inquiry into why there is such resistance to having an inquiry into this most important issue confronting Britain.
	Unfortunately, those of us who raise these matters are accused of being little Englanders, extremists, nutters—you name it; we are them—and even worse. But what we are seeking is the truth about the European Union. I should have thought that everyone wanted to know that—not only people such as me who believe, and have always believed, that it is not good for us. Those in favour should welcome such an inquiry. So often, the predictions of people such as myself are scoffed at, as are the outcomes.
	All too often we have been proved right. I take, for example, the issue of scrapping the pound and adopting the euro. Those who cautioned against it again were attacked for not wanting to join the "euro express" and were even labelled unpatriotic because they believed in keeping our own currency. Events have proved us right. Even Jacques Delors, the former commissioner, agrees that we were right. A Times report of 17 January 2004 quotes him as saying:
	"The UK was right not to join the flawed euro".
	So we have his endorsement.
	One important result of an inquiry might be to find out why the Prime Minister was so anxious to get us into the euro post-haste, and led a campaign to achieve that.
	One advantage claimed for EU membership is trade. Yet Britain has consistently had an average trade deficit of £5 billion every year since we joined. Think of what that sum means in terms of jobs. So, in fact, the advantage of trade does not lie with this country, it rests with other countries in the European Union.
	An inquiry could also establish whether our fishing and agriculture industries have thrived within the EU or whether they would do better outside. It could also examine the effect of membership on other great industries, such as shipbuilding and steel, and indeed the effect of the overregulation throughout the whole of the EU and its functions.
	Furthermore, an inquiry would examine whether the taxpayer is getting value for money, and the effect of losing our rebate amounting to £3.23 billion each year, which is clearly under threat and is being defended—I am glad to say ably—by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And, of course, a cost-benefit analysis at this time would be able to examine the new demands by the Commission, of which we have already heard; for example, a huge increase in funding for education. So far as I can understand from what has been said, it wants to take over further education and it wants to spend an extra £1.8 billion on administration alone.
	Finally, we are always being told that if we do not further integrate with the EU we will be isolated. Of course we will not be isolated. That is complete nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that we would be described as a small isolated country if we were outside the European Union. But we are the fourth largest economy in the world and we are respected throughout the world for our experience in diplomacy.
	There is a wide, wide world beyond the European Union. What we should consider is our place in that world and whether we should be thriving in it, leading a Commonwealth comprising one quarter of the world's population, rather than rooting ourselves further into the stagnant regulation-ridden backwater of the European Union where we can only—and always do—follow while others lead.

Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, suggested that the Government should welcome an impartial inquiry. I am confident that the Government, and indeed the main Opposition parties, will welcome the quite admirable clarion call of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
	Why? For this reason: ordinary mortals—among whom of course I number myself—are fully entitled to be swayed as much by emotion and sentiment as by cool calculation when evaluating the pros and cons of membership of organisations such as the EU, but governments, and what the French call la classe politique, are not supposed to allow their hearts to rule their heads. Hard-headed practical considerations, both economic and non-economic, are all that should count.
	As Palmerston famously put the matter 156 years ago:
	"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.
	This traditional lack of sentiment—rather dismaying to a layman it must be said—has been all too well illustrated by Britain's treatment of New Zealand. In this country, 55 years ago New Zealand was riding as high as possible in public estimation. Together with the Canadians and the Australians, the New Zealanders had rallied to help us in two world wars. New Zealand had suffered—like the Canadians and Australians—disproportionately high casualties in the process. Its people were mostly of British stock, and most of our lamb and butter came from there.
	Yet, less than a quarter of a century later New Zealand was politely but firmly cast adrift, to facilitate Britain's entry into the EEC. How strange then, given this Palmerstonian lack of sentimentality—indeed ruthlessness—that there are those in the British establishment who argue that any talk of loosening our formal—I stress "formal"—links with continental countries collectively must be firmly squashed, since it would allegedly "hurt the feelings" of those countries and indeed be deemed a "hostile act", and provoke them into inflicting unspecified Lear-like retaliatory horrors upon us. Such a mixture of emotionalism and panic is inconsistent, to say the least, with traditional British foreign policy.
	Emotion and sentiment in the field of foreign relations is fine for individuals, but where governments are concerned they need to be subordinated to practical considerations.
	Most Euro-enthusiasts, like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will now concede that there are some disadvantages to EU membership while most Euro-sceptics will concede that there are some advantages to EU membership. For example, I willingly admit that, when standing up to American bullying in matters of trade and tariffs, there is a lot to be said for being part of a large, populous negotiating bloc such as the EU.
	So, if we can agree to put emotions and sentiment on the back burner for the time being, it is simply a question of whether or not the overall advantages—both economic and non-economic—outweigh the overall disadvantages. What could be wrong with that?
	If, at the end of the day, the evidence points overwhelmingly one way, that is probably the end of the argument for most people—not of course for everyone—and a lot of talk, time and money would be saved. If the evidence demonstrates only a small overall benefit in continued EU membership, that is the moment when emotional and sentimental considerations can legitimately come into play in deciding what steps to take.
	If, on the other hand, the evidence shows that there is a small overall disadvantage in EU membership, that would give the Government a golden opportunity to pinpoint the most disadvantageous aspects of that membership, with a view to seeing whether it might be possible to initiate a ground swell of public opinion across the Community in favour of rolling back the frontiers of the acquis communautaire in certain areas. One would have to pitch one's arguments directly to the continental electorates; it is no use appealing to the European eélite, who do not want to relinquish their grip on power—their "benign" grip, as they would argue, unconvincingly.
	The ordinary people of the Continent do not want "obsessive harmonisation" as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, put it many years ago, or interference in the nooks and crannies of their everyday lives—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Hurd—anymore than we do. So improvements are, although in practice unlikely, theoretically by no means impossible.
	The inquiry would have one other great benefit. It would knock on the head two big lies and one smaller lie, or at least fib. Quite disgracefully, too many Euro-enthusiasts have successfully terrified much of the British electorate by claiming that 3 million jobs directly depend on membership of the Community and that, if we left the EU, 3 million people would lose their jobs overnight or before long—something that they know to be untrue. But I exempt the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, from those strictures, because he admitted that 3 million was a grossly exaggerated figure.
	The second big lie is slightly less inexcusable, in that some people genuinely seem to believe it—quite amazingly. That lie is that only the existence of the EU and its earlier manifestations has prevented western European nations from going to war with one another once again. Time and again, I have challenged those who make that assertion to set out one plausible scenario in which western European democracies would have gone to war with each other in the past 50 years had the EEC never been created. Unsurprisingly, no one has ever risen to that challenge.
	A smaller lie—or perhaps misconception, as it may well have been genuinely believed—was advanced in debate on the Maastricht Treaty some years ago, I think from the Conservative Back Benches. That was that the continued existence of the European Youth Orchestra depended on our signing the treaty. I yield to no one in my admiration of the European Youth Orchestra or any other youth orchestra; they are marvellous, inspiring, usually a joy to see and hear and give one enormous hope for the future of our civilisation. But if the European Commission vanished overnight and the Council of Ministers never reconvened, the European Youth Orchestra could still flourish and go from strength to strength.
	It is quite possible that, ultimately, the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, might find continued EU membership to be beneficial to the United Kingdom, on balance. But if it did so, at least the findings could no longer be based on the ridiculous claim that withdrawal would lead to mass unemployment, a third European war and the diminution or cessation of all social, cultural and intellectual contact with the European continent.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Motion moved by my noble friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, few more important questions face us at this time. The reason for that is that, week by week and year by year, we face a huge number of decisions on how we participate in Europe, including, later this year, the issue of the constitution itself, which other noble Lords have mentioned. It surely cannot be sensible to enter those negotiations and agree outcomes without a clear view of what is at stake and what are the alternatives to proceeding with that option.
	As other noble Lords have said, the Government's tactic tends to be to assert that there is simply no alternative to signing up to whatever option is offered from Europe, other than full withdrawal. It is then argued that such a step would be economically and politically disastrous, and that those who question the benefits are therefore extremists whose questions can safely be dismissed. I reject that form of response to an attempt to have an intelligent debate on matters of such crucial importance.
	I cast my case for the Motion in the context of current discussion under way in Europe and the reality that there must be a high probability that failure to reach an agreement on the proposed constitution acceptable to all—in particular, if it is vetoed by Britain or other countries—will inevitably drive practical consideration of what has in the past been called a multi-tier Europe. We cannot assume that Europe will from this point on always proceed at a uniform pace or in a uniform way. A multi-tier Europe is a likely outcome—whether now or at some point during the next few years. That is what my noble friend Lord Hurd has previously called variable geometry.
	I believe that there is nothing wrong with that; indeed, it is probably highly desirable, because we must recognise that different countries in Europe have different needs and that different outcomes are likely to suit their interests. There may be many in Europe with different situations from that of Britain who would benefit from a higher level of integration than that from which many of us believe that Britain would benefit.
	If we are to participate in such discussions, as and when they appear on the agenda—which I believe is likely to be sooner rather than later—we must decide what kind of tiers we want to help shape in a multi-tier Europe and which of those tiers bests suits our interests. That means that we need clarity about what aspects of the current European Union are in our favour; and clarity about which aspects, on balance, we would rather be outside.
	I am sure that there is general agreement in the House that many things occur alongside our membership of the European Union that we would want to preserve under any scenario—in particular, the notion of free trade across Europe and as much of the world as we can achieve. That applies similarly to co-operation on aspects of crime, security and other matters that cross national borders. None of those things is in doubt. The question is: how much of the current European Union overheads do we need to deliver those benefits; and what burdens imposed by those overheads do we not need?
	Let us take the single market as an example. It is clearly desirable to have as low a level of tariffs across Europe as possible. The truth is that, since the European Union was founded, tariffs have dropped across all global trade. Several countries outside the European Union now achieve as favourable terms with our European partners as we do, without being part of the European Union. Yet the costs of the single market are now significant.
	Thousands of regulations are imposed every year—many of them introduced into UK law without effective scrutiny. Can the Minister tell us how many regulations originating in European legislation have been passed into UK law during the past 12 months; and whether on that narrow aspect the Government have any estimate of the cost to British business? Despite the fact that we are all in favour of free trade, it is reasonable now to ask what are the benefits of additional trade that we may achieve in Europe through being a member of the single market, versus the loss of trade elsewhere that may arise because of diminished competitiveness due to those regulations.
	As other noble Lords have said, we should enter that discussion recognising that the European Union accounts for less than 10 per cent of Britain's GDP and that, as my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out, the European Union will actually be one of the slowest growth areas for trade in the coming years. It will be China, India, Russia and similar countries that will drive world growth during the next 50 years. They are where our future lies.
	Germany, by contrast, will have flat or close to flat GDP during the next 20 years, if current forecasts are to be believed. If its productivity continues at no more than 1 per cent a year, or thereabouts, and its population in work declines by 1 per cent a year, simple maths says that it can look forward to little growth in its overall economy during that period. So we must be clear in a hard-headed manner about where our interests lie against the true engines of world and British growth in the years ahead.
	As other noble Lords have said, beyond the single market there are huge questions about the benefits that we may achieve from our membership of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and other common policies. If we were constructing Europe today—and if, as I believe, we have the chance to construct a new Europe now that better suits our needs—would the Government choose to be a member of the common agricultural or fisheries policies? If not, may we see the benefit analysis that justifies that decision; or their arguments why we should continue our membership? It is not a question of dismissing them as part of a "take it or leave it" package; we have the opportunity now to shape a new Europe. Let us shape it around our interests, not around the false argument that we must accept everything or nothing.
	The final argument made against the proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, is that because we cannot estimate something to decimal places, it is not worth doing. In my experience, there are few very important questions to which one cannot get approximate answers and an approximate analysis. This is a case in point: we do not need the answer to decimal places. If the Government set up such an inquiry, it should be able to give a ballpark estimate that would at least give direction to the debate. If I am wrong, and such an inquiry could not come up with such an analysis, the Government should admit that neither they nor we know, rather than continuing to assert that the evidence of benefits is so overwhelming. If it cannot be proved, we must all accept that the answer is unknown.
	The only conclusion that one can reach is that the Government are afraid of the analysis. Surely, it is almost a dereliction of duty to negotiate the kind of steps being proposed without at least attempting an analysis. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will concede to Parliament the kind of analysis for which my noble friend's Motion calls.

Lord Moran: My Lords, our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. I should like first to say a word about the noble Lord. As he is one of the rare parliamentarians who say without equivocation that we should come out of the European Union, quite a number of Peers seek to disparage him as a lonely eccentric. That is a serious mistake. I have noticed a tendency in this House to be impatient with views that run counter to the general consensus. I remember how Peers made it clear that they regarded the repeated efforts of my noble friend Lady Mar to alert them to the dangers of organophosphates as tiresome and boring. The time came eventually when they recognised that she was right and paid her the respect that she was due.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, suffers in much the same way. However, he has built up a great fund of knowledge about the EU and knows more about its workings and its effects on this country than most Members of the House. If we look at opinion outside the House, it is clear that the noble Lord is not part of a negligible crackpot group but puts forward views held by a substantial part of national opinion. MORI polls have recorded that for the past 25 years just under half of all its respondents want us to get out of the European Union. The latest available MORI figure for June last year was 46 per cent. The fact that all three of our main political parties support continued membership seems to have had little effect on the public's views.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, complained for a long time that the BBC was biased against those who wanted to leave the EU. He arranged to monitor a large number of programmes and demonstrated that his suspicions were correct. The BBC was somewhat abashed and finally asked him to come on to "The Politics Show" during prime time television. He put the case for leaving the EU and answered questions. At the end, a bemused BBC presenter said that they had received more than 400 e-mails in 20 minutes and that most of them called for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to become Prime Minister or whatever. Later the switchboard was jammed for an hour and a half, with 90 per cent of callers in favour of leaving. I cannot think offhand of any other Member of your Lordships' House who could persuade the BBC to give him or her a solo slot to put forward a controversial case on Europe and secure such massive support from viewers. I suggest that in future the House would be wise to take the noble Lord's views with the seriousness that they deserve.
	I welcome the debate. I had hoped that the House would have been able to discuss our relationship with the EU after I had moved an amendment to the Motion on the Liaison Committee's report on 14 January, but that hope was frustrated. In a vote that evening the House resolved by a large majority that within the next 12 months the slender resources available for an ad hoc committee should be devoted to euthanasia rather than to our relationship with Europe. That seemed an odd choice of priority. Why do we devote relatively little of our time and resources to questions of great concern to the people of this country, such as immigration, crime, MRSA in hospitals, the need to strengthen the family and our relationship with the EU, and instead spend weeks discussing the banning of hunting or a whole series of Bills improving the standing of homosexuals? That does not do much for the standing of this House. I am in no doubt that, if we are to have an early inquiry into the pros and cons of detachment from the EU or of a looser relationship, sadly we cannot look to this House to carry it out. We shall have to make other arrangements.
	On 14 January, I said that an inquiry should first bring together, in a readable form, details already in the public domain. On reflection, I concluded that this part of the inquiry would best be carried out by a research organisation rather than a committee. Arrangements have therefore been made for the respected independent research institute Civitas, with which some noble Lords are associated, to collect from impeccable sources and to publish in a clear and easily understood way the costs and benefits arising from our membership of the EU. I hope that it may be available by the summer. It will be interesting to see whether the view expressed before our entry by the head of the Treasury, as recorded on page 225 of Hugo Young's book This Blessed Plot, that the advantages were far outweighed by the costs, now appears to have been correct or not.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, those who feel strongly about the matters covered by this debate are fully entitled to put their views to the House, and so far have been doing so at full throttle, if I may say so. None the less, I have a certain sense of deja vu.
	The topic of the debate was the subject of recent exchanges on the report of the Liaison Committee, as some noble Lords have mentioned, when decisions were taken on the appointment of a Select Committee on another matter but not on the cost-benefit analysis of UK membership of the European Union. The merits and demerits of our membership certainly played a major role at the Second Reading of the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, moved in March 2000, and which we debated on that occasion for more than four hours. It was also relevant, in one way or another, to the discussion and decision on the Nice Treaty and to the UK Government's support for the convention that led to the draft constitutional treaty, which this House debated for eight hours on 9 September last.
	It is highly desirable that we should look at the benefits and disadvantages, not only of individual proposals, but of some sectoral policies as they have developed in the European Union. In the field of environmental protection and consumer affairs, for example, it seems fairly evident that European Union actions directed at the maintenance of high water quality; the reduction of potentially damaging emissions; the protection of certain habitats; or the control or removal of damaging chemicals, all within a European Union context, are of benefit to the United Kingdom and the individual citizen. None the less, it is desirable from time to time to assess the policies to see that they are being applied in the most effective manner, and that from the strictly national perspective we are getting maximum benefit from positive measures.
	Similarly, we ought to be attentive to cases where, for example, judgments of the European Court of Justice have given rise to a different interpretation of the law from that which we expected. An example now being examined by the social affairs sub-committee of the Select Committee on the European Union, from which I have come directly to this debate, is the European Court of Justice judgment that, when a junior doctor is on duty in a hospital, the time that he or she spends having a rest break or even sleeping is to be counted as working time. That complicates considerably how some medical services are currently organised in the National Health Service and in some other countries.
	Thus, I believe that the proper way to approach policy developments within an established structure, such as our membership of the European Union, is a continual process of assessment. The work of the Select Committee on the European Union is an important contribution, by providing material for Parliament, Government and the private sector to make such assessments. Over the years, a number of reports within the European Union have also sought to quantify the value of certain policies, most notably the Cecchini report on the internal market.
	It is a separate question whether we ought to seek today to attempt a complete cost-benefit analysis of UK membership of the European Union. In the light of the detailed attention that is given to all proposals and to the progress or lack of progress on policies in the European Union, there would only need to be a comprehensive examination—which is obviously a mammoth task—of all the elements, quantifiable and non-quantifiable, of our membership of the European Union, if there were some special reason to do that. I do not see it. The situation remains in many ways similar to that prevailing for many years, and in some important ways it is better.
	The budget of the European Union remains capped at 1.24 per cent of gross national income and has often been under spent. It represents less than 2.5 per cent of public expenditure in the European Union, the remaining 97.5 per cent being spent by member states. The single market is in effect, and although there is more to be done, the four freedoms—free movement of goods, services, capital and people—are largely respected. The single market was the biggest single initiative to remove red tape in Europe. Millions upon millions of forms were abolished. All of us who experienced it know what an enormous change that was. It is true that some things are not perfect now, but before the single market they were totally different and markedly worse.
	The common agricultural policy has been considerably reformed. It will no doubt be further changed when, as I hope, the current round of international trade negotiations gets under way again. We have had a huge vote of confidence from the 10 countries who will become members of the European Union in May.
	It is important and the most useful course for Britain to concentrate our attention more strongly on practices in the European Union that do not correspond to our approach nationally, but where it is realistic to conclude that the EU practices could, over a period of time, be corrected. I have in mind—I give examples, but they are important for the UK—three features of European Union legislation that should concern us as parliamentarians. There are many cases where criticism in the British press of decisions or legislation is mistaken or just plain batty, but it is none the less true that the perception of the British public that the EU is legislating in nooks and crannies has some element of truth. We know that the European Commission is capable of saying, as it did to the Select Committee recently, that it is going to put forward "only" 126 proposals or communications. I pointed out that we do not think like that in this country.
	My message is that we can do something about it. Since almost all European Union primary legislation is decided by the Council and the European Parliament, we ought to make sure that the delegated authority to make secondary legislation is limited in the primary legislation to what is strictly necessary. We should use far more sunset clauses, which are not favoured in Brussels, but are a very good idea. The Commission should always present a list of legislation which it proposes to repeal or to let expire at the same time as it puts forward proposals. In this way, we can make practical changes that would be beneficial to us.
	I am inclined to the view that a cost-benefit analysis on the scale suggested would be a diversion. We need to make best use of the advantages of EU membership, and to target strongly and in a focused manner areas for improvement, as I have indicated in relation to legislative practice.

Lord Roper: My Lords, it is the custom of the House to thank the noble Lord who has introduced the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has been fortunate in winning the ballot for today's debate, but he will not be surprised to hear that there is not unanimous agreement on these Benches with all the points that he made in his characteristically vigorous introduction. Nor will your Lordships be surprised when I say that I particularly valued the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Williamson of Horton.
	Initially, I shall say one or two words on cost-benefit analysis, a point to which I shall return when I deal with one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson—before he leaves. I shall deal with the noble Lord's point at this stage. I go back to the wise words used in the debate on 14 January by someone who is one of the most distinguished academic economists in the House and Chairman of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs—the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He put that day's proposal in its place from an academic economist's perspective. He has dealt with cost-benefit analysis for 40 years, and is therefore in a better position to speak on such matters than many of the rest of us. Tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, made it clear why it was a difficult way of proceeding.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that there were two very different pictures of Europe drawn by Members of the House. I am one of those who see the European Union and its development during the second half of the 20th century as one of the most remarkable political achievements of that century. One cannot give it credit for all that has changed and all the differences, but I think that it is not unreasonable to claim, when one considers Europe in the first half of the 20th century, that it has been a significant contributory factor.
	Perhaps the most significant evidence of that is the extraordinary fact of a new entity that has attracted all its neighbours into wanting to join. Nobody who has argued the case from the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has had much to say about enlargement. The Union attracts even those that are not members at this stage. Ten new members will come in on 1 May. Every one had a referendum in order to decide whether to go in: in each case the proposal was carried. That must be very strange and they must have a rather different picture of the European Union from the one we have heard about tonight. I wonder why they have been so misguided. There are another dozen countries that I suspect may become members of the European Union in my lifetime. These include Romania and Bulgaria, with which negotiations continue, and six countries in the western Balkans, including Moldova, and perhaps Turkey. Nor do I exclude the other three European countries—Iceland, Switzerland and Norway—from joining the European Union before 2020.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that it would be a lie to say that the European Union had stopped a war. In a sense, he is right. We cannot prove the negative. We cannot prove that if the European Union had not existed there would have been a further conflict in Europe. In the same way, one cannot say that NATO deterred the Russians. We do not know that the Russians would not have attacked even if there had not been NATO. But those two institutions have created a culture of co-operation among the countries that belong to them and have been one of the most fundamental confidence-building measures among their participants. They have created something referred to by a Czech political scientist as a "security community"; that is, a group of countries that cannot imagine the use of force to settle disputes among themselves. Of course, that is very different from what we knew in Europe in the first half of the 20th century. That is an outstanding achievement.
	The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Williamson, referred to the creation of a common economic space—the single European market—for which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, had an enormous amount of responsibility as a member of the Commission. That freeing up of European trade was not just the removal of tariffs. It was much more than that and much more fundamental.
	Here I agree with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The role of the European Union within the World Trade Organisation enabled us to organise and negotiate collectively. When the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, was commissioner, he did that in a remarkably effective way.
	I should like to make a point about cost-benefit analysis. It is impossible to think of any way in which one could evaluate financially the value of the benefit of being in a group like that when negotiating. That is why cost-benefit analysis, which is all right when deciding whether to have a Victoria Line—one of the first decisions where cost-benefit analysis was used—becomes much more difficult with something of this kind.
	In conclusion, perhaps I may echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in the earlier debate. I, too, congratulate the Minister on her remarkable stamina. She has not only given a most important Statement on the ways in which this House will play a larger part in future in dealing with European matters, but she is also winding up two of the debates. I look forward to hearing her response.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, warmly thank my noble friend Lord Pearson for bringing forward the debate. I salute his determination on this issue, which he has shown again and again in bringing the matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Roper, I, too, add commiserations—I am not sure that that is quite the right word—or I note with sympathy the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, when she speaks following me, will have performed three times today at the Dispatch Box on arduous and difficult subjects. I hope that the immense work she puts in is recognised in the right places and that she receives a pay increase, and so forth.
	As I think the noble Lord, Lord Moran, indicated, we have heard voices in this debate which ought to be heeded and, if possible, should be argued against by good robust arguments. They should not just be dismissed, or met with stale facts that may have suited yesterday's debates but are not good enough for the 21st century, nor just met with mere assertions. That is difficult because there are deep feelings on either side on those issues. From time to time, the re-assessment or revisiting of our major international commitment is, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, self-evident.
	That must be so in the situation that we face in Europe where, clearly, enlargement, with the prospect of still greater enlargement in a few years' time, and the prospect of Turkey joining the EU after that, means that we are dealing with a completely different entity. We have to reckon with completely different policy considerations from those that drove the original six countries together or, indeed, inspired the commitment of the United Kingdom to the then Common Market. The original European Union has been totally transformed, as have been the original reasons for its creation. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, observed, it is self-evident that one needs to look again at these issues with care in order to find the right arguments to carry public confidence in the policy, otherwise it will simply drain away.
	In economic terms, I strongly hold the view that the original Common Market, as we called it, was for the United Kingdom a way forward out of socialist and corporatist stagnation and into free markets and competition, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in his contribution. But that was many years ago. Recently there has been a complete reversal. Over the past 10 to 15 years, the UK has gradually emerged as the competitive, free market economy while large parts of the original European Union are now stagnating, weighed down by excessive labour and other kinds of regulation, as well as high taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, keeps pointing that out with great vigour, and no doubt he will continue to do so.
	There is nothing inevitable about this contemporary and rather unhappy trend, one which is leading to considerable quarrelsomeness. The Commission is litigating against nation states and the Stability Pact has been driven through in a way described by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. While I may not carry all my noble friends with me on this, the signs are that with enlargement, with the arrival of 10 new countries and more to come, along with the obvious failure in so many areas of the integrationist agenda and the bitterness that that is causing, the European Union is on the point of very great change. That, too, is self-evident. Its citizens and some of the member states want that change.
	In my view, this is not the time to think about cutting loose from the European Union, because this is probably the best opportunity during my lifetime, or certainly for the past three decades, for reshaping the European Union in ways that are more comfortable, sensible, democratic, open and flexible; that is, in ways that I suspect the vast majority of the people of Europe now want. So this is not the time to break away. Therefore, the wider debate, to which I hope our debate today has contributed—and to which my noble friend Lord Pearson has certainly contributed—should not turn so much on the narrower traditional issue of the UK's precise relations with the rest of the European Union, but on what kind of Union we now want to set our sights on, and what kind of Union can now be achieved in the new conditions constantly appearing around us. How flexible, comfortable for its members, open, convenient, useful and committed to free market principles can it be?
	That is plainly not the kind of EU we have now; we have something very different. It is obvious that a Union structured to meet the problems of 30 or 40 years ago cannot meet the needs of the totally different world now emerging. The agonies of some recent treaty-making negotiations such as Nice demonstrate the clash between the past and the present. The Union cannot meet the needs of the newer or smaller member states which are now joining, and it cannot even meet the needs of some of the existing members, as we hear every day.
	What is now called the European Union was inspired by great ideals and has great achievements to its credit. But everyone knows that the EU institutions have become hopelessly out of touch with the peoples of Europe. That was the problem the recent convention was meant to address, but did not. It is also hopelessly out of touch with and remote from our democracies. The attempt over recent years to force on Europe, from the top, the priority of deepening integration has been not only deeply unpopular, it has failed Europe and those of us who from the start have fought for and believed in greater unity within Europe. It has also led directly to the serious mishandling of the widening and enlargement of Europe which should have been the Union's greatest aim and highest fulfilment.
	We should put all these failures behind us. It is high time that Britain, with all its acknowledged inventiveness and negotiating skills, its great public servants and its passion for democracy, took the lead towards this new and better Europe instead of dancing all the time to the old tunes of others who cling to the past and lack an understanding of changed global conditions.
	If the present Government cannot muster the will to do this, then we will take up the baton. If the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are tamely going to return to a warmed-over version of the ill-conceived and centralising constitution, then we will take the lead in showing that there are much better ways forward, both for our own country and for an enlarged Europe.
	In reshaping the Union for modern conditions, constant monitoring of the economics is important, but also very difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, reminded us, cost-benefit analysis is tricky enough for the layman. In the hands of economists, it rapidly slides off into total confusion. However, the British people are not prepared to be fobbed off with the kind of stale arguments which may have worked 20 years ago, but which today look frankly implausible. I would not dare to go on the doorstep and say that the reason we must stay in the Union is all the wonderful jobs that are being created. People read the newspapers and see that, just across the water, there are yawning levels of unemployment looming like huge black holes which, luckily, we have avoided here.
	The economic issues are bound to be very subjective and difficult to get to grips with. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that they are only part of a broader political case for remaining deeply involved in our region as well as being a global power—an involvement which we would be very unwise to break. We have broken with it once or twice in the past with absolutely disastrous results.
	I cannot see that a committee of this House carrying out a cost-benefit analysis will be a terribly useful answer. I do not in any way want to cast doubt on the extraordinarily good reports that come out of our committees, but in this case, as we have heard during the debate, there would be more heat than light. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, quite freely admitted that he lives on a different planet, or in a different world or different Europe, from those whose voices he has heard. Both of these extremely opposing viewpoints would have to be represented on a balanced committee. Whatever the intentions, I wonder whether we would get anything out of it at all.
	As to whether the Government should undertake an analysis, again this is a very subjective issue. The last analysis they carried out was on the euro. That came through as an enormous two-foot high block of paper—I have tried to read most of it—but it reached no conclusions; the economists all argued with each other. The only use I have found for it is as an excellent pedestal for my grandchildren to stand on when they are washing their hands. So I do not see that as a solution. Perhaps the Civitas Group will provide a clearer answer.
	As our global involvement becomes more and more intricate and as Asian power rises and there is a huge shift in the centre of gravity of the world economy towards Asia, perhaps we should establish not a Lords cost-benefit analysis committee but a Lords foreign affairs committee. Such a committee would be well placed to look at European and wider policies in the many areas which, as I know from experience, are not covered in another place and which will not be covered, inevitably, by our excellent EU Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, quite rightly said the other day, the EU Committee will be increasingly occupied with scrutiny.
	I hope that your Lordships will give that suggestion and the need for a wider and less Euro-centric perspective—which we must bring to our foreign policy and international relations—serious thought in due course.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have listened with enormous interest to the contributions made by your Lordships today. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said, this is certainly not the first time that we have considered his proposal. Once more, as on previous occasions, noble Lords around the House have made eloquent and forceful speeches. I was particularly struck by the heartfelt words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and by the clarity and intellectual precision with which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, set out his case in his forceful contribution. The forensically argued contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, was, as usual, very powerful indeed.
	To answer the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I do not dismiss the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am here today to make the Government's case and I am prepared, as always, to argue the Government's points. In the time remaining, I shall try to focus on the principal themes raised by your Lordships and, at the same time, to make the Government's position as clear as I can.
	The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—which was introduced most recently last year—proposed a committee of inquiry to examine the implications of this country withdrawing from the European Union. Again today the noble Lord asks for a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, said, something of deja vu.
	I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, wants to defend our democracy; that the noble Lord wants to defend the sovereignty of this Parliament. Those are noble aims that we in the Government share. The Foreign Secretary set out earlier today in another place—indeed, I repeated his Statement in your Lordships' House—new proposals for achieving greater engagement by Parliament in European Union affairs. These would include an annual White Paper to give Parliament and the public a clear overview of the issues which are coming up in the EU and the Government's priorities in that context. In addition, the Government favour creating a committee to build on the success of the Standing Committees established last year on the convention and the IGC, in which Members of both Houses can participate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, says that in arguing these points, the Government give no facts. He implied that there was no real discussion. The fact is that Ministers and officials have attended 13 sessions of committees; we have responded to 16 Select Committee reports, and we have had more than a dozen debates on EU issues on the Floor of both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, reminded us. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that gold-plating, as he put it—and as my right honourable friend put it in his Statement—is being tackled. The Statement this afternoon made that very clear.
	The fact is that Parliament decided to take this country into the European Union. It has not changed its mind since. In the case of every major treaty amending the terms of our membership under governments of different political persuasions, it has voted to enact those treaties into United Kingdom law. I do not think, as the noble Lord believes, that it did so in ignorance. On the contrary—it did so because it saw clearly the arguments in favour of EU membership. If the noble Lord or any of your Lordships disagree, it is for your Lordships to set out the contrary case, as, indeed, many have done so eloquently this evening. But it is also to secure a parliamentary majority in favour of the argument—that is the nature of our democracy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, wanted to know why such a cost-benefit analysis would be damaging. The Government's agreeing to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would send two very misleading messages, the first being that we believe that Parliament is ill-informed on Europe. As we have heard today, even when your Lordships' views are, in our opinion, incorrect, your Lordships are certainly not ill-informed. Those who want to know more about the way in which the European Union works and to influence our approach to its future agenda have in any case more and more opportunities to do so, not least those which the Foreign Secretary proposed in another place today.
	The second false message would be that we have even the smallest doubt about our EU membership. We do not. In the time remaining to me, perhaps I can try to explain why. Before I do, I would like to make a third point. Some of your Lordships have suggested or implied that if there were a cost-benefit analysis and if it were proved somehow that the enterprise were not in this country's favour, that would be fine. But it would be equally fine if that were not the case. The idea that such a cost-benefit analysis would be undertaken on a risk-free basis is fanciful. It would involve many risks to us.
	Let there be no mistake about the Government's position. We are absolutely convinced that membership of the EU is in the best interests of the United Kingdom. I freely acknowledge the financial contributions that the UK makes to the European Union. Between 1995 and 2002, the EC budget has averaged around £55 billion per annum. The UK contribution before abatement has been in the region of £9.5 billion. Our average receipts have been £4.45 billion and our net contribution, once we have taken into account the abatement, has been around £2.75 billion.
	The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, referred to the Commission proposals on future financing of the EU. The Commission proposals are unrealistic and unacceptable. A budget of no more than 1 per cent of EU gross national income could meet the needs of the enlarged union and be affordable. Incidentally, before the point is raised, we believe that our abatement is fully justified and non-negotiable.
	The issue of cost is not the end of the story. There are the benefits of the single market and the unquantifiable benefits—yes—of peace and democracy in Europe. I make no apologies for putting forward that argument. However, I was not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, wanted the argument to focus totally on the financial issues. But I hope that the noble Lord remembers that the economic arguments for our membership convinced the British public in 1975 that EU membership was in this country's interests. Those arguments are even stronger today. British jobs and prosperity have increased as a result of our free trade with Europe. There are more than 370 million customers in the single market—38 per cent of world trade. Within a few months, enlargement will increase that number to 450 million—the world's largest single market; bigger than the United States and Japan combined.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, thinks that we have behaved badly towards New Zealand. I do not believe that, taken in the round, New Zealanders think themselves that badly disadvantaged. However, it is not ruthless but plain common sense to recognise that a market of 450 million is more advantageous than one of 3 million. There are 3 million jobs in the United Kingdom that depend upon that market, and 800,000 British-based companies trade with Europe. We already export three times as much to the EU as to the United States and more to France and Germany than to the whole of the developing world. Nobody argues that all that would be lost. I do not argue that. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, made it very clear that he does not argue that either. However, it would be placed in jeopardy.
	Enlargement alone is expected to boost the UK economy by £1.75 billion. Britain receives the largest share of inward investment into the EU because we are a gateway to the European market. Being outside the single market would kill foreign direct investment and devastate our manufacturing industry. We may not be isolated, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says that the Government argue, but we would be hugely disadvantaged. I was a trade Minister for two years and I know how often investors told me that our position as part of Europe was vital to their decision to invest in this country.
	The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, took an interesting line. He said that we need not buy the whole package and that we could partially disengage. I do not think that the noble Lord can honestly believe that we could cherry pick our way through even the last four treaties—the Single European Act, the Treaty of Maastricht, the Amsterdam Treaty and the Treaty of Nice—with one willing partner in Europe, let alone 15 or 25. He is right; there is China and India and possibly even Russia, which will grow exponentially. So, incidentally, will Mexico and Brazil, in all probability. However, does the noble Lord really think that we would strengthen our negotiating position as a market of 60 million? Or would we be better advantaged as part of a market of 450 million—the strongest and arguably the most attractive market anywhere in the world?
	In promoting the benefits of withdrawal from the EU, the noble Lords, Lord Pearson, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Willoughby de Broke, fail to take account of one crucial fact: even if we were not a member of the EU, we would still have to abide by the EU's standards to be able to trade with Europe. But there would be one fundamental difference—we would have absolutely no influence over setting those standards. The costs of this would be considerable. I quote a member of the noble Lord's own party, Kenneth Clarke—perhaps the noble Lord does not have much time for Ken Clarke. He said:
	"It is hard to see what form a new semi-detached model might take, even if it were possible . . . the Norwegian government has no choice but to accept single market laws and regulations made by the Member States.
	If we are to abide by EU rules, it is better to play a part in drawing them up. Under this Government, by engaging positively with European partners, we are able to win the arguments on a range of important policy issues. The EU has signed up to enlargement, to the Lisbon agenda, and to CAP reform. We are confident too of making our case on the EU's future financing, a subject about which many noble Lords are very interested.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, says that we can leave the EU and enjoy free trade. I find that a remarkable argument. Does he think that we would be able to escape the tariffs and taxes? Does he think that we would have free movement of capital and product markets? The argument that we can leave the club and still enjoy all the benefits of membership defies sensible analysis.
	Let us consider the other benefits. Thousands of British workers have benefited from EU legislation to improve their working conditions. Every member state must apply the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. As a woman, I can tell your Lordships that that is a very important issue. Under EU law, it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. EU law means that both men and women are entitled to at least three months parental leave.
	It is not only the UK workforce that benefits, it is our customers too. The very persuasive contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, made that admirably clear. The reality has been that the EU has been championing better consumer safeguards on a range of subjects, including the environment and package holidays. Thanks to the single market, British consumers have access to a greater variety and quality of products at competitive prices. An example is the price of long-distance calls across Europe, which has been almost halved since 1998, thanks to telecoms liberalisation in the EU. The single market has helped to deliver the highest standard of living in European history and has helped to provide greater choice and cheaper prices for consumers.
	Let us look at freedom of movement. Being in the single market means that British people now have the right to travel, work, study and live, visa-free, throughout the whole of the European Union. Hundreds of thousands of British people have been able to take advantage of this. UK residents will make around 40 million trips to mainland Europe this year alone. One hundred thousand Britons are currently working in other EU member states. Some 234,000 UK pensioners draw their pensions in other EU countries; and more UK students study abroad in the EU than any other country—on average, 10,000 each year.
	What is more, the European Union improves our quality of life. Everyone knows that issues such as crime and environmental pollution recognise no borders. Because of their transnational nature, such issues are better tackled on a European basis rather than by individual countries. By working together we can achieve far more than we are able to achieve in isolation. Measures taken within the European Union to protect the environment have made our beaches cleaner, our air cleaner and our countryside greener. I could not help being very surprised by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, whose green credentials are, as we all know, very strong indeed. But action at EU level against crime—another issue—has also helped to ensure that fewer drugs end up on Britain's streets.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, poked some fun at me over the issue of toy safety. I think that toy safety is something in which most sensible parents of young children are extraordinarily interested. As he made the point, I asked officials to have a look at this issue. I am told that three-quarters of a million accidental injuries a year are caused by unsafe products. That is very serious for those who are injured; it is very serious for the children who are injured. So rocking horses may seem quite fanciful, but there is a serious issue, as the noble Lord knows in his heart of hearts, when he considers how important safe toys really are.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, the point I was trying to make in respect of both drinking water and toys is that, if it is that important, we can do it ourselves. We do not need to be told to do it by Europe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; but the party opposite did not do that in 18 years of government. We are able to talk about standards across the whole of Europe, not just standards in this country. The noble Lord has to grasp that we do not trade in isolation; we are talking about what we buy into this country and about the possibilities when people go overseas. This is a serious issue; it is not a fanciful one.
	It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. Although the economic arguments for EU membership are overwhelming, the other arguments are, in their own way, even more powerful. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roper. One cannot know with any certainty what would have happened in Europe had there not been a European Union. What we do know is that tens of millions of Europeans died in the wars of the first half of the twentieth century, and we were all threatened by the Cold War and the division of Europe. Along with NATO and the United Nations and other international institutions, the European Union has helped to prevent those terrors recurring. It has provided a model of democracy, tolerance and freedom for both its immediate neighbourhood and the wider world.
	I was very struck by the point made by my noble friend Lord Dubs who, quoting John Hume, said that the EU is the longest and most successful peace process anywhere in the world. I thought that was a very powerful point.
	In Europe itself in the early 1970s, the period when the UK joined the European Community, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all at some point ruled by military dictatorships. Today they are peaceful and democratic members of the EU. I do not claim, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that I might, that war would have been the inevitable result had the EU not existed. I do not claim that; I merely state the facts.
	In the wider world, we now face new threats and challenges. The visit to Tehran last year of the Foreign Secretary with his French and German counterparts was an example of how we can achieve far more in partnership with our neighbours than we can in isolation.
	On 1 May this year, we have the accession of 10 new member states of the European Union, and we shall finally see the last traces of the Iron Curtain pulled away. It is a strange time to argue that the costs of EU membership outweigh the benefits or even that the benefits can be quantified financially. When the countries of eastern Europe have chosen unity with Europe, should Britain really be retreating from it? I listened very carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, but does he really believe that 10 countries have been simultaneously misled by a massive conspiracy to believe that the benefits of joining the EU are entirely illusory and that their governments are either perfidious or just plain stupid? That really does defy rational analysis—that 15 current governments and 10 others due to join us are somehow part of a massive conspiracy seems an extraordinary suggestion.
	The noble Lord said that the Government were guilty of arrogance, cowardice and deceit. No—I simply disagree with the noble Lord. If I may say so gently to him, I thought that the use of those accusations was pretty outrageous. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I do not regard the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as a crackpot. I do not use words such as "arrogance", "cowardice" and "deceit"; I simply say that I disagree with him, and I disagree with others of your Lordships. But I do so respectfully—I hope that I do so sensibly—and I do so with candour.
	Of course, there are things that need reform. Many will argue that we have mistaken their position and that it is not the unity of Europe but the European bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are rarely popular, but they are necessary to some degree or other—but yes, we need some reforms. We have supported reform of the European Union institutions, including those introduced by Neil Kinnock to improve accountability and transparency. We also support the reforms agreed at Seville in 2002 on the workings of the Council of Ministers. Our presidency in the EU next year will give us a valuable chance to keep the agenda alive and in good focus.
	On one point I did agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I thought that he was absolutely right in many of his criticisms of the CAP. Again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Dubs on this point; the UK is firmly committed to further modernisation of the CAP, and we are strong supporters of the reform deal agreed last June, which brought about the decoupling of direct payments and transferred resources towards wider rural development.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was right, of course: every cow receives a subsidy of two dollars a day, as opposed to the one dollar a day given to the 1.2 million starving people around the world. She is right—that is outrageous. I have argued that from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. However, I am not going to turn my back on that argument or stop being part of the engine for that reform. I want that change, not only from this country's point of view but from the point of view of all the European Union countries. I want to be there, having that argument.
	I agree that EU aid could be better spent. We are working with the Commission and the member states to improve its management and to focus on global poverty reduction. We are engines of that argument; if we were not there, a lot of the passion in putting that argument would not be at that European table. The noble Baroness may disagree with me, but I have been there and been part of making those arguments and I can tell her that they are made with enormous force by the UK Government.
	I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. We have a chance to reform; we in the UK are committed to that. I might even go so far as to argue that we in the UK—all of us, in all parts of your Lordships' House—are engines for that reform in the future. I disagree with him, however, on his points about the constitutional treaty. We discussed that earlier this afternoon. I believe that that text will help us in the reform endeavour.
	I have come to the end of my time. The notion that somehow this cost-benefit analysis will do anything to reform the European Union and would take our arguments forward one iota is fanciful. It would be not only time-wasting and expensive but, I argue as passionately as I can, immensely damaging to everything that we value about our relationship with the European Union.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Table advises me that this debate should end at 8.47 p.m., which I believe leaves me two minutes in which to thank all noble Lords who have contributed. Of course, my special thanks go to the 12 of your Lordships who supported me, but I also wish to thank the five noble Lords who spoke against the Motion as at least that made for something of a debate.
	There are a number of points that I should like to put to the noble Baroness but she has run me out of time, so I cannot. No doubt we shall have another opportunity. Finally, however, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for his extremely generous comments about me. I have a confession to make, which is that in 1992, when I was, obviously mistakenly, put on your Lordships' European Union Select Committee, I made the mistake of reading and understanding the Treaties of Rome. I do not think that many people in this country have done that. I am afraid that it has given me inspiration, as the noble Baroness said, to try to save our democracy. Our involvement with the European Union is taking us to disaster in that respect. As the noble Baroness rightly suggests, I, at least, and, I think, many of my noble friends, will try to continue to do just that. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donoughue.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Fookes) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Amendment of Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996]:

Lord Donoughue: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 3, line 5, at end insert "and the National Gamekeepers' Organisation jointly"

Lord Donoughue: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, speak also to the related Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
	Not wishing to delay the Committee, especially those such as myself who will be heading for Dover at dawn, I shall explain very briefly the related amendments, which respond to the Minister's Second Reading comments about a certain lack of balance in the authority as between the three main groups; that is, the welfare groups, land use and field sports. I accept those comments and to meet them I propose the following.
	In Amendment No. 1, I propose that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the National Gamekeepers' Organisation have just one representative. Amendment No. 2 would remove the separate representation for the National Gamekeepers' Organisation. Amendment No. 3 would include the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare in the list of organisations. Therefore, the sports bodies' representation would be reduced by one, the welfare groups' representation would be increased by one and there would be a broad division of 3:3:3 representation as between welfare, land use and sports groups. It is not a perfect balance and perhaps the Minister may say that, but my noble friend will know, as a member of the present Government, that nothing is perfect. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I speak in full support of the noble Lord, who has explained his amendments. I believe that they strengthen substantially the authority. We must not forget that the Secretary of State can accept or not accept the conclusions of the authority. The amendments would achieve a far better balance in the authority than was the case hitherto and would address one of the major points that was made by the Minister when we debated the matter previously.

Lord Whitty: I am grateful that my noble friend heeded my words at Second Reading. I therefore welcome the amendment. I regret that he has to leave the country early tomorrow morning, and I hope that that is nothing to do with the Bill.
	The provision does not go far enough, however. Although I do not wish to object to the move, we still have an authority that in my view and the view of not only those concerned with the animal welfare dimension, but of a number of neutral observers, is still not balanced. It over-represents the interests of the field sports and under-represents the views of those concerned with animal welfare, particularly given that views on the issues expressed by those whom my noble friend described as land-use bodies tend to coincide with those of the shooting and hunting organisations.
	There is probably a more fundamental problem about how the authority ever reaches a consensus, as it is difficult to see how it would do that on the codes. Therefore, many items would be referred to the Secretary of State, whereas it would be really helpful if the authority were sufficiently balanced to sort out such matters. It has also been suggested that the balance could be redressed by additional members appointed by the authority, but that authority is unlikely to appoint people who would change its overall balance significantly.
	Although I accept that the amendment is a move in the right direction, it is not sufficient to address the central points of balance that I raised at Second Reading.

Lord Donoughue: I thank those who have spoken, including my noble friend. As always, we shall look carefully at what he has said. However, I firmly believe that the amendment improves the balance of the authority.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Donoughue: moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
	Page 3, leave out line 6.
	Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at seven minutes before nine o'clock.